Controversies in Sexual Medicine: Is Sex Just Fun? How Sexual Activity Improves Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With nonscientific, religious, or magic arguments, sexual activity has been regarded in the past as dangerous to health. This opinion is now rejected, and intercourse is generally considered healthy. However, while some aspects of the equation "more sex equals more health" have been demonstrated, others still need robust data for confirmation. METHODS: Four scientists (an endocrinologist, a psychologist, a gynecologist, and a urologist) with expertise in the area of sexual medicine were asked to contribute with their opinions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Expert opinion supported by currently available literature. RESULTS: Expert 1, who is Controversy's section editor, demonstrates that sexual activity stimulates testosterone production. He infers that this physiological stimulus to androgenic production is one of the reasons why sexual activity improves general health. He is partially supported by the psychological findings in the couple having sex dissected by expert 2 and by the experimental evidences discussed by expert 3, who found that general benefits of sexual activity are not just for men. Expert 4 critically discusses contrasting findings so far published on the relationship between sexual activity and prostate cancer. He, in general agreement with the remainder of the faculty, stresses the need for more research on this entire topic. CONCLUSION: Readers of The Journal of Sexual Medicine will judge if safe, satisfactory, and frequent sexual activity can be prescribed as a medicine in order to improve both general and sexual health of individuals and of the couples.
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 | 0.017 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".