MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101450895 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaf161.1049

Systematic review of national guidelines on cancer prevention in trans and gender-diverse populations

2025· article· en· W7101450895 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineCancer preventionCitationMEDLINECancerCervical cancerCancer screeningCancer registrySystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals face barriers to cancer screening and HPV vaccination, as many programs rely on legal sex, and systemic issues such non-inclusive records and lack of provider training persist, leading to low uptake. Inclusive guidelines are essential to ensure equitable cancer prevention, but their global availability remains limited. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe national guidelines on cancer prevention addressing TGD populations. The search was conducted in Sept. 2024 using Overton, supplemented by citation mining and manual searches. Documents were classified by service and document type (official guideline vs recommendation). Thirty-seven documents from 11 countries were identified. For breast cancer screening, 9 guidelines from Australia, Canada, US, UK, Ireland, Netherlands and 7 recommendations, from these countries and Italy, were retrieved. For cervical cancer screening 6 guidelines (Australia, Canada, US, UK, Ireland, Netherlands) and 9 recommendations, including from Italy, Belgium and France were identified. Colorectal cancer screening was addressed by the UK and Ireland, but specific TGD adaptations were limited. For anal cancer, 1 Italian society statement addressed high-risk groups. For prostate cancer, 3 recommendation from the US, UK and Ireland were identified. Over 47 countries have implemented gender-neutral HPV vaccination policies, indirectly covering many TGD individuals. Seven guidelines (Canada, US, UK, Sweden), and 6 recommendations including from Italy and Spain, addressed TGD populations specifically. Across all services, only few documents from Canada, the UK, and Ireland provided detailed operational instructions for eligibility, invitations and procedures. Despite growing awareness, most cancer prevention policies inadequately address the needs of TGD populations. Anatomy-based screening pathways and standardized national guidelines are urgently needed to achieve equitable access. Key messages • Few countries have issued cancer screening or HPV vaccination guidelines fully inclusive of transgender and gender-diverse individuals, with major gaps across all services. • Standardized, anatomy-based eligibility and clear invitation protocols are urgently needed to improve equitable cancer prevention for transgender and gender-diverse populations worldwide.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0190.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.450
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.079 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207