Evidence Hub

Impact of reference gender on bone mineral density and fracture risk assessment in transgender adults

Scala A, Delbarba A, Ceolin C, Camozzi V, Giannini S, Procacci S, Silvestrini I, Ferlin A et al.

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2026

249 participants

Abstract

UNLABELLED: In transgender adults, reference-gender choice alters Z-scores and fracture-risk estimates. Z-scores differ by 0.4-0.6 SD, with male references identifying more individuals with low BMD for age, especially in those assigned male at birth. Dual-reference reporting is advisable until further evidence becomes available.

PURPOSE: Transgender individuals, especially those assigned male at birth (AMAB), exhibit lower bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the cisgender population. Interpretation of densitometric data is challenging, as the choice of reference gender can significantly influence Z-scores and fracture risk scores. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the gender reference database (male or female) on the assessment of BMD and fracture risk in transgender adults prior to gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 249 transgender individuals (153 assigned female at birth - AFAB and 96 AMAB) aged 18-43 years, recruited in the Hospitals of Padua and Brescia (Italy). Z-scores were calculated using both male and female reference databases and FRAX scores were computed using both gender inputs. Associations with anthropometric, biochemical, and hormonal parameters were explored.

RESULTS: Z-scores differed systematically depending on the reference gender, with mean ΔZ ranging 0.4-0.6 SD across skeletal sites. Switching reference databases frequently led to reclassification of BMD status. AMAB…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 249 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free