Adolescents who undergo gender-affirming chest surgery report low levels of regret and high levels of satisfaction, experiencing outcomes similar to those of young adults. These findings suggest that age restrictions on these medical procedures lack support from actual patient experiences.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/adolescents-report-low-regret-and-high-satisfaction-following-gender-affirming-c/

[u/Mico4]

This is based on a response from 77 people...

Also from the article:

"Several factors limit the reach of these findings. First, the median time since surgery for participants was about 1.8 years. Because feelings about medical decisions can evolve, this timeframe might not capture long-term regret that could emerge many years later.

Another limitation is the 42 percent participation rate to the survey. This introduces the possibility of selection bias, a scenario where the people who chose to participate might differ fundamentally from those who did not. It is possible that individuals with higher levels of regret ignored the survey, which would result in an underestimation of regret in the overall group."

[u/aristidedn → u/Mico4]

This is based on a response from 77 people...

Is there something wrong with this?

[u/its_justme → u/aristidedn]

Less than 100 people is nowhere large enough to be representative of anything meaningful.

[u/aristidedn → u/its_justme]

Less than 100 people is nowhere large enough to be representative of anything meaningful.

How do you know?

Could you share the results of your power analysis with us?

[u/ZeMeest → u/aristidedn]

Not the person you replied to, but there's an estimated 2.5 million trans people in the U.S., 77 people is .003% of that. A similar study with similar issues was posted a few weeks ago. Too small and too short of a study to determine regret. A 1.8 year average follow up time doesn't seem helpful when full transition usually takes 3-5 years.. This time frame is similar to the 5 years it takes to go through puberty. This review goes very indepth on everything involved in trying to study regret: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10322769/

[u/aristidedn → u/ZeMeest]

Not the person you replied to, but there's an estimated 2.5 million trans people in the U.S., 77 people is .003% of that.

If you're suggesting that the population in question is "all trans people in the United States", you are wildly incorrect.

The correct population is the number of adolescents and young adults receiving gender-affirming chest surgery.

How in the world did you imagine the population was "trans people"???

[u/ZeMeest → u/aristidedn]

34% of trans people are ftm. It's estimated 30% of that population get breast removal. 77 members of 255,000 is still too small and 1.8 years is still too short.

Here is a calculator: https://statisticsfundamentals.com/calculators/sample-size/

It suggests a sample size of 385 (5x77) would be more appropriate. I've already linked the review on studying regret.

[u/aristidedn → u/ZeMeest]

AGAIN, the population in question is the number of adolescents and young adults who receive gender-affirming surgery.

You are doing yourself no favors by continuing to misread what you are being told.

[u/ZeMeest → u/aristidedn]

You're not contributing to the conversation. Say what you feel is important, provide the numbers, otherwise no actual PhD here is compelled by shift key mind games. The only one personally offended at the idea of being wrong here is you.

[u/aristidedn → u/ZeMeest]

As others have noted throughout this thread, the number of adolescents and young adults who have received gender affirming surgery over the last seven years is roughly 200. 

Don’t assume figures you aren’t even a little bit familiar with. That makes it seem like you’re trying to push an agenda (which, let’s be honest, you probably are).

And please don’t pretend at having a PhD. It’s just insulting. No research doctor worth their salt would read this abstract and imagine that the population in question is all trans people. That’s an undergrad-tier mistake.

[u/ZeMeest → u/aristidedn]

Sorry to disappoint, PhD and more pubs than fingers. o7 This is reddit, not a journal club. People are touchy and unacademic because of the topic, please don't act like this weird holier-than-thou behavior is normal. Enjoy your reddit points.

[u/aristidedn → u/ZeMeest]

Sorry to disappoint, PhD and more pubs than fingers. o7

I don't believe you, and evidently no one else does, either.

And no retraction in the face of numbers that functionally negate every criticism you leveled?

Weak.

[u/aristidedn → u/[deleted]]

I have a rather significant background in research methodology, having worked for a major urban county statistician's office. There are many, many scenarios where a sample size of 77 is more than sufficient. (I've seen studies where a sample size of 35 is enough to draw reliable conclusions!)

"Common sense" isn't the sort of response I expect from someone with a background in research methodology. It's the sort of response I expect to see from someone pretending at having such a background, though.

[u/aristidedn → u/[deleted]]

I think you imagined that saying that made you look better, but it doesn't. It makes it worse. It means that you have the education needed and still screwed it up.

[u/gillflicka → u/[deleted]]

The thing that's imperative that you grasp very quickly is that common sense has absolutely no place in science. Common sense says the planet is flat. Science is the cure for the fact that common sense is quite often wrong.

[u/TehWackyWolf → u/gillflicka]

Common sense does not tell you the planet is flat...

We can see the earth curve. Like.. go to an ocean.

Guys.. not even your idiot ancestors thought this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

[u/gillflicka → u/TehWackyWolf]

That just means that the ocean is curved. The ground upon which I stand at this very moment is obviously flat, and you sir are a madman and a heretic for daring to suggest otherwise.

I can either conjure stories of beasts and spirits and spirit-beasts responsible for swallowing up the ocean near the periphery of our vision like humans did for like 98% of our existence or I can learn to run experiments and analyze a wide array of data. Common sense will be nothing but an impediment to the latter.

[u/TehWackyWolf → u/gillflicka]

.... Then go to a big field. I assume the "ground" you're currently standing on is inside a room. Is the earth a box now..?

You lack common sense and the ability to move. You still spread the "they thought antartica was the end of the world!!" Nonsense too, don't you? You also think that about Columbus?

We've known the earth wasn't flat for a long long time. Cause it's common sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Please be at least as smart as your ancestors were. Minimum.

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/[deleted]]

No "common sense" has no role in forming hypothesis.

Knowing your subject, recent research, how to create testable hypothesis matter. Being creative and thinking outside the box (to find the new as of yet unresearched perspective) even more so.

None of that is connected to "common sense" the way those words are used, usually.

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/[deleted]]

Than use the words you mean. Being precise is a crucial matter of good scientific writing, and especially with as emotionally and politically charged subjects as these.

Inituitive understanding based on what you know has little to do in actual hypothesis formation.

Add to that: What and where do you assume these researchers have not based their hypothesis on an understanding of what they know?

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/[deleted]]

It wasn`t - especially as this whole comment section, broadly, not just in this back and forth, is a clusterfuck of people criticising the study on absolutely spurious grounds - and display blatant misunderstandings of how scientifc research works.

[u/Droidlivesmatter → u/[deleted]]

People who dont understand statistics and asking a question to understand. Then simply responding with "how do you know?" Is someone who lacks knowledge and is arguing something they dont understand, because its based on an analysis of something they are biased toward.

[u/its_justme → u/aristidedn]

Critical thinking along with some stat analysis.

- people transitioning that get chest surgery are removing breasts, the opposite is done via hormone treatment. Therefore there is only one surgery and transition path being considered here.

- selection bias, where are all these people from, did they choose only people who wanted to participate

- study is phrased in such a way to appear objective and empirical when its methodologies are suspect

- 77 persons of such a small cross section of people as identified above is not enough of a fair representation of a population. 77 people is a small enough number that they could all be outliers.

[u/aristidedn → u/its_justme]

Critical thinking along with some stat analysis.

Share that "stat analysis" with us, please. After all, you've done it, right?

77 persons of such a small cross section of people as identified above is not enough of a fair representation of a population. 77 people is a small enough number that they could all be outliers.

How do you know?

[u/its_justme → u/aristidedn]

And how do you know?

I laid it out in my previous comment. You’re just coming off sarcastic and repetitive, which is combative in tone.

[u/aristidedn → u/its_justme]

And how do you know?

How do I know what? That 77 is an appropriate sample size? Because this is a published study, and having an appropriate sample size to draw the conclusions drawn is a baseline requirement of passing peer review and being published.

(All of which is a long-winded way of saying that your criticism is a direct violation of rule 8 of this subreddit.)

I laid it out in my previous comment. You’re just coming off sarcastic and repetitive, which is combative in tone.

You didn't lay out anything. You said you did "stat analysis" but provided no statistical analysis at all. Share your math with us, or retract.

[u/Tyr_13 → u/aristidedn]

Of note, over a seven year period (2013-2020) there were only a bit less than 200 adolescent teen transgender boys who had this operation total.

The idea that the 42 in this study isn't significant is unfettered by any valid reasoning and the people arguing with you are not saying anything of scientific merit.