Toward less intrusive pubertal assessment: longitudinal evaluation of tanner and non-tanner metrics in East African adolescents
Background: Accurate pubertal assessment is essential in pediatric endocrinology and adolescent health research. While Tanner staging remains the gold standard, its subjective nature and invasive genital examination limit feasibility and acceptability, especially in longitudinal studies and culturally sensitive settings. This study evaluated less intrusive pubertal assessment combinations that maintain discriminative accuracy. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study among 200 uncircumcised, sexually naive males aged 15-17 years in Southwestern Uganda, with quarterly follow-up over three years. Clinicians assessed Tanner staging metrics (pubic hair, testicular volume, penile length, scrotal color), axillary hair, and serum testosterone. Markov transition models estimated Tanner stage progression. Ordinal logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analyses quantified discriminative performance of individual and combined metrics. Results: At baseline, participants were distributed across Tanner stages II (6.0%), III (13.5%), IV (55.0%), and V (25.5%). Among individual metrics, pubic hair distribution best predicted overall Tanner stage (AUC=0.867), while penile length was least predictive (AUC=0.833). The full four-metric Tanner model achieved high discrimination (AUC=0.993). However, a less intrusive combination of pubic hair and scrotal color achieved comparable discrimination (AUC=0.942), improving to AUC=0.953 with axillary hair and age. Markov modeling demonstrated frequent bidirectional transitions between Tanner stages IV and V, reflecting variability in longitudinal staging. Conclusions: A minimally intrusive assessment combining pubic hair, scrotal color, axillary hair, and age reliably predicts pubertal stage, offering an acceptable alternative to traditional Tanner staging for research and surveillance contexts where genital manipulation is impractical or unethical.