MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors Protect Against Condom-Associated Erection Loss and Condom Slippage?

2009· article· en· W1579291353 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 institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondomMedicineFamily planningGynecologyPopulationDemographyFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)SyphilisEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Some physicians prescribe phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) for men who experience condom-associated erection difficulties with a view to increasing condom use and reducing risk of sexually transmitted infections. AIM: To examine whether the prevalence of erection-related condom problems differs between men using and not using PDE5i at the last condom-protected penile-vaginal (PVI) or penile-anal intercourse. METHODS: Seven hundred-five men who had used a male condom during the past 3 months for PVI were selected from a sample recruited through advertisement to an electronic mailing list for a large, internet-based, sexual-enhancement product company. An internet-based questionnaire posted in 2006 assessed condom-use errors and problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Men who did and did not use PDE5i during the last time a condom was used were compared on: (i) erection loss while applying a condom; (ii) erection loss during sex while using a condom; (iii) condom slipped off during sex; (iv) delayed condom application (penetration of the vagina or anus prior to application of the male condom); (v) early condom removal (condom taken off and intercourse continued without it); (vi) "problem with the way the condom fit"; (vii) "problem with the way the condom felt"; and (viii) condom breakage. RESULTS: Controlling for age, marital status (yes/no), and having children (yes/no), PDE5i users, compared with nonusers, were: (i) three times more likely to report erection loss during sex while using a condom (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.40-7.39, P = 0.006); (ii) almost five times more likely to report the condom slipped off during sex (AOR = 4.75, 95% CI = 1.68-13.44, P = 0.003); and (iii) more than twice as likely to remove condoms before sex was over (AOR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.09-5.56, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians prescribing PDE5i may want to evaluate whether men are experiencing condom-associated erection difficulties and, if they are, consider titrating dosages and/or making referrals for psychosexual therapy and/or condom skills education.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.305
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