Scientific clickbait: Examining media coverage and readability in genome-wide association research.

In the present study, we analyzed a large corpus of English-language online media articles covering genome-wide association studies (GWAS), exemplifying the use of computational methods to study science communication in biological sciences. We analyzed trends in media coverage, readability, themes, and mentions of ethical and social issues, in over 5,000 websites published from 2005 to 2018 from 3,555 GWAS publications on 1,943 different traits, identified via GWAS Catalog using a text-mining approach to inform the discussion about genetic literacy and media coverage. We found that 22.9% of GWAS papers received media attention but most were described in language too complex to be understood by the public. Ethical issues are rarely mentioned and mentions of translation are increasing over time. We predicted media attention based on year of publication, number of genetic associations identified, study sample size, and journal impact factor, using a regression model (r2 = 38.7%). We found that chronotype, educational attainment, alcohol and coffee consumption, sexual orientation, tanning, and hair color received substantially more attention than predicted by the regression model. We also evaluated the prevalence of the clickbait "one gene, one disease" headlines (e.g., "Scientists Say They've Found Gene That Causes Breast Cancer") and found that it is declining. In sum, online media coverage of GWAS should be more accessible, introduce more modern genetics terms, and when appropriate, ELSI should be mentioned. Science communication research can benefit from big data and text-mining techniques which allow us to study trends and changes in coverage trends across thousands of media outlets. Results can be explored interactively in a website we have built for this manuscript: https://jjmorosoli.shinyapps.io/newas/.

Surgical satisfaction and quality of life outcomes reported by transgender men and women at least one year post gender-affirming surgery: A systematic literature review.

Background: Many transgender women and men undergo gender-affirming surgeries. Existing work shows that early surgery outcomes are generally positive, suggesting high surgical satisfaction and positive quality of life outcomes. Less work, however, examines these outcomes in the longer-term. Aims: To conduct a systematic literature review into the longer-term (i.e., ≥ 1 year) surgical satisfaction and quality of outcomes following various forms of gender-affirming surgery in transgender populations. Specifically, we aim to examine research on such outcomes at least one-year post gender-affirming chest, genital, facial, vocal cord, and Adam's apple removal surgeries. Methods: Studies were identified through Google Scholar, PsycINFO, Scopus, and PubMed databases, as well as through Google Scholar search alerts. We considered all studies published until October 2021. Two reviewers extracted data from suitable studies using Covidence. Both reviewers also independently assessed the identified studies' risk of bias and strength of evidence. Results: Seventy-nine low quality (e.g., small sample sizes, lack of control/comparison groups) studies suggest that most transgender patients are satisfied with surgical outcomes when assessed at least one-year post-surgery. Low quality research also indicates that transgender women and men typically report positive psychological and sexual wellbeing post-surgery, and similar wellbeing outcomes as those who have not had surgery. Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this literature review is the first to critically summarize and evaluate all published studies on the longer-term quality of life outcomes following chest, genital, facial, voice and Adam's apple removal surgeries for transgender women and men. While the results suggest promising surgical satisfaction and quality of life outcomes following surgery, many studies only draw on small samples, and most studies do not allow for causal conclusions. Further, few studies have compared surgical outcomes between transgender women and men. We conclude by offering concrete suggestions for future research.

The cosmetic surgery paradox: Toward a contemporary understanding of cosmetic surgery popularisation and attitudes.

Modern women feel compelled to meet near-impossible standards of beauty. For many, this pursuit ultimately culminates in cosmetic surgery - a radical form of beautification that is rapidly becoming popular worldwide. Paradoxically, while prevalent, artificial beauty remains widely unaccepted in contemporary society. This narrative review synthesizes feminist dialogue, recent research, and real-world case studies to argue that female beauty standards account for both the growing popularity of cosmetic surgery and its lack of mainstream acceptance. First, we implicate unrealistic beauty standards and the medicalization of appearance in popularizing cosmetic surgery. Second, we analyze how negative attitudes toward cosmetic surgery are also motivated by unrealistic beauty standards. Finally, we generate a synthesized model of the processes outlined in this review and provide testable predictions for future studies based on this model. Our review is the first to integrate theoretical and empirical evidence into a cohesive narrative that explains the cosmetic surgery paradox; that is, how cosmetic surgery remains secretive, stigmatized, and moralized despite its surging popularity.