Incidence of Autonomic Dysreflexia and Silent Autonomic Dysreflexia in Men With Spinal Cord Injury Undergoing Sperm Retrieval: Implications for Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of symptomatic autonomic dysreflexia (AD) and asymptomatic autonomic dysreflexia (silent AD) in men with spinal cord injury (SCI) undergoing sperm retrieval procedures. DESIGN: Descriptive study. METHODS: Thirteen men underwent cardiovascular monitoring during vibrostimulation (or self-stimulation) to the point of ejaculation. Cardiovascular results were compared with objective and subjective signs of AD to determine the incidence of symptomatic and silent AD. Past history and knowledge of AD were correlated to participants' experience of AD in the clinical setting. OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in diastolic and systolic blood pressure is the primary outcome data that will be compared to AD history and data from each participant's questionnaire. RESULTS: Twelve of the 13 men experienced a rise in blood pressure consistent with AD (defined as an increase in blood pressure > 20 mmHg). Men with incomplete tetraplegia were able to identify symptoms associated with AD, and those with complete tetraplegia did not experience symptoms. Eleven of the 13 men knew that sexual activity could cause AD; however, only 2 of the 13 men acknowledged a history of AD with sexual activity and/or ejaculation. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic and silent AD occur frequently during sperm retrieval in men with SCI above T6. Knowledge and past history of AD are not accurate indicators of who will experience AD with sexual activity and/or ejaculation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".