Assessing and conceptualizing orgasm after a spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Type – Aetiology (individual cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? This study provides the first questionnaire on the specific bodily sensations that can be perceived at orgasm thereby complementing the subjective phenomenological experience of orgasm. OBJECTIVES To provide a questionnaire for assessing the sensations characterizing orgasm. To test the hypothesis that orgasm is related to autonomic hyperreflexia (AHR) in individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI). SUBJECTS AND METHODS A total of 97 men with SCI, of whom 50 showed AHR at ejaculation and 39 showed no AHR, were compared. Ejaculation was obtained through natural stimulation, vibrostimulation or vibrostimulation combined with midodrine (5–25 mg). Cardiovascular measures were recorded before, at, and after each test. Responses to the questionnaire were divided into four categories: cardiovascular, muscular, autonomic and dysreflexic sensations. RESULTS Significantly more sensations were described at ejaculation than with sexual stimulation alone. Men with SCI who experienced AHR at ejaculation reported significantly more cardiovascular, muscular, autonomic and dysreflexic responses than those who did not. There was no difference between men with complete and those with incomplete lesions. CONCLUSIONS The findings show that the questionnaire is a useful tool to assess orgasm and to guide patients in identifying the bodily sensations that accompany or build up to orgasm. The findings also support the hypothesis that orgasm may be related to the presence of AHR in individuals with SCI. Data from able‐bodied men also suggest that AHR could be related to orgasm, as increases in blood pressure are observed at ejaculation along with cardiovascular, autonomic and muscular sensations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".