Measurement of Sexual Functioning After Spinal Cord Injury: Preferred Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of certain instruments to assess sexuality and fertility after SCI, an expert panel identified key areas to study and evaluated available instruments. These were rated according to certain predefined criteria. METHODS: The authors divided sexual issues into male and female sexual function, male reproductive function, and female reproductive function. The instruments that have been used most frequently to measure these aspects of sexual function over the past 5 years were identified by expert consensus. Finally, these instruments were subjected to a critical review. RESULTS: The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), measurement of vaginal pulse amplitude (VPA), the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and the measurement of ejaculatory function and semen quality were considered appropriate measures to assess sexual responses and reproductive function after SCI. There were no measures identified to assess female reproductive function. CONCLUSIONS: For clinical trials aiming to improve sexual function after SCI, the FSFI or the IIEF is currently preferred. Although VPA is an appropriate means to assess female sexual responses, it is only useful for laboratory studies and is too invasive for use in clinical trials. For assessment of male fertility potential, assessment of ejaculatory capacity and semen analysis are recommended.
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 | 0.072 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".