Dori Grijseels

Knowledge of the unique call types produced by a species has historically been an important part of ecological research. However, the definition of a call type is not straightforward, and across species and studies different methods are employed to study call types and vocal repertories. Here, we analysed the methodology used to identify the vocal repertoires of 197 mammalian species across 220 studies. We found a large variability in the features extract from individual calls, methods to analyse spectrographic features, and methods to cluster call types. We further see a low uptake of novel methods for acoustic analysis and clustering. Lastly, we identify a lack of open data across the included studies, with less than 2% of studies providing the raw audio dataset underlying their paper. Based on these results, we call for increased standardization of methods and data transparency across the field.

Neurobiological evidence is given increased weight in discussions surrounding health policy. Findings about adolescent brains have led to questioning their decision-making capabilities in various settings. However, inferences from laboratory studies often do not apply directly to real-world cases, leading to misconceptions about adolescent decision-making and risk-taking. Using the context of trans adolescent healthcare, this article reviews current knowledge on adolescent decision-making and discusses applications and limitations of these findings to healthcare policy.

Queer people are still underrepresented both as STEM researchers and participants, partially due to a dearth of accurate data on this demographic. The lack of consideration for queer identities in data collection and dissemination causes a vicious cycle of exclusion. To address this invisibility, it is important to collect and report data in an inclusive and accurate manner across all areas of research, including in studies that are not specifically focused on queer populations. However, STEM researchers are often unsure of how to properly collect data in a manner that fairly represents queer people. We have developed a list of Ten Simple rules to aid researchers to perform data collection on queer individuals, focusing on study design and data dissemination. We address several issues in queer data, such as language use, dealing with small populations, and balancing demands. We also discuss how to extend this inclusive practice for studies on animal populations. These rules are aimed at anybody surveying populations which may contain queer individuals, including for example research studies and inclusivity surveys for conferences. By providing practical tips, we hope to alleviate insecurity and confusion around this topic.

Queer people are still underrepresented both as STEM researchers and participants, partially due to a dearth of accurate data on this demographic. The lack of consideration for queer identities in data collection and dissemination causes a vicious cycle of exclusion. To address this invisibility, it is important to collect and report data in an inclusive and accurate manner, but STEM researchers are often unsure of how to properly do this for queer people. We have developed a list of Ten Simple rules to aid researchers to perform data collection on queer individuals, focussing on study design and data dissemination. We address several issues in queer data, such as language use, dealing with small populations, and balancing demands. We also discuss how to extend this inclusive practice for studies on animal populations. These rules are aimed at anybody surveying populations which may contain queer individuals, including for example research studies and inclusivity surveys for conferences. By providing practical tips, we hope to alleviate insecurity and confusion around this topic.

The Cass Report aimed to provide recommendations for how services for gender diverse children and young people should be delivered in England. Our critical appraisal reveals significant methodological and conceptual flaws within the report and the research commissioned to inform the report, which included seven systematic reviews and both quantitative and qualitative primary research. Using the ROBIS tool, we identified a high risk of bias in each of the systematic reviews driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, inadequate study identification, and the failure to integrate consideration of these limitations into the conclusions derived from the evidence syntheses. We also identified potential sources of bias and unsubstantiated claims in the primary research that suggest a double standard in the quality of evidence produced for the Cass Report compared to quality appraisal in the systematic reviews. We discuss these issues in relation to how evidence regarding gender affirming care is framed, the wider political context, and the future for gender affirming care. To uphold evidence-based medicine, future gender-affirming care research must generate robust observational data, involve transgender communities, and prioritise patient-centred outcomes, ensuring validity, generalisability, and cultural relevance. The Cass Report’s recommendations, given its methodological flaws and misrepresentation of evidence, warrant critical scrutiny to ensure ethical and effective support for gender-diverse youth.

In 2020, the UK’s National Health Services (NHS) commissioned an independent review to provide recommendations for the appropriate treatment for trans children and young people in its children’s gender services. This independent review, named the Cass Review, was published in 2024 and aimed to provide such recommendations based on, among other sources, the current available literature and an independent research program. This commentary seeks to investigate the robustness of the biological and psychosocial evidence the Review — and the independent research programme through it — provides for its recommendations. Several issues with the scientific substantiation are highlighted, calling into question the robustness of the evidence the Review bases its claims on, as such, calling into question whether the Review is able to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its recommendations to deviate from the international standard of care for trans children and young people.