MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing and conceptualizing orgasm after a spinal cord injury

2011· article· en· W1516055324 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

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut de Readaptation Gingras Lindsay de MontrealUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgasmEjaculationPsychologySpinal cord injurySexual dysfunctionMedicineSpinal cordNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.264 · 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