MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Erectile Dysfunction (ED) is a Shared Sexual Concern of Couples I: Couple Conceptions of ED

2009· article· en· W1484985634 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersBayer HealthCare
KeywordsErectile dysfunctionPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) may be regarded as a shared sexual concern with a significant negative impact on both patients and their partners. AIM: The current research sought to explore the degree of concordance or divergence of couple members' perceptions of the specific functional impairments characterizing the man's ED, and the concordance or discordance of their attitudes, beliefs and experiences about the male partner's erectile difficulty. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to partners of men who participated in the Men's Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality (MALES) 2004 study, who consented to their partner's involvement. A modified version of the questionnaire used in the MALES study was employed, adapted to reflect the female partner's perspective. Questionnaire responses were analyzed in relation to responses provided by male study participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A 65-item questionnaire assessing women's perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes regarding aspects of ED. RESULTS: High levels of concordance between couple members were observed across almost all items. Women's perceptions of both the specific functional impairments characterizing their partner's ED and the frequency of the partner's erection difficulty were strongly associated with assessments the men themselves had made. Significant associations were also observed between couple members' responses relating to their beliefs about the causes of ED, effects of ED on the relationship, communication about ED, finding a solution to ED, and attitudes toward medication. A number of specific male-female discordant perceptions and attitudes were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study demonstrate a high degree of concordance in couple members' perceptions of the male partner's ED, and in their attitudes and beliefs about ED. Specific instances of discordance between couple members may contribute to treatment avoidance or couple conflict.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it