The DSM Diagnostic Criteria for Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) is one of two sexual desire disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and is defined by two criteria: A-"persistently or recurrently deficient (or absent) sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity" and B-"marked distress or interpersonal difficulty." AIM: This paper reviews the prevalence and correlates of low desire in men and qualitative and quantitative research on the experience of sexual desire in men and women. METHODS: A literature search of Medline, PudMed, and PsychInfo was used to identify any publication on low desire in men. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The strength of empirical findings was used as a basis for making proposed revisions to the diagnostic criteria for HSDD in men. RESULTS: The dilemma of whether desire and arousal can be reliably differentiated in men is discussed, and parallels to the literature in women are drawn. Finally, I consider three options for the diagnosis of low desire in men for DSM-5. Option 1 proposes that the DSM-IV-TR name and criteria are preserved for men in DSM-5. Option 2 proposes that the recently proposed criteria for Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder in women are also adopted for men, which would result in one gender-neutral category. Option 3 proposes that the criteria for Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder also be applied to men, with a minor modification to one criterion (i.e., that absent or reduced genital and/or nongenital physical changes not be included as a criterion); this diagnosis would then be applied only to men. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supporting each of these proposals is presented and critiqued. It is concluded that the proposal for DSM-5 should be made on the basis of field testing of new criteria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".