The Effect of Comorbidities and Socioeconomic Status on Sexual and Urinary Function in Men Undergoing Prostate Cancer Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Comorbidities and socioeconomic status (SES) represent known confounders of baseline health-related quality of life. AIM: To assess the effect of comorbidities and of SES variables on urinary function (UF) and sexual function (SF) and on associated bother items. METHODS: A cohort of 1,162 men without an established diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) completed questionnaires addressing SES characteristics, the lifetime prevalence of 12 comorbid conditions, SF and UF as well as their associated bother. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Crude and adjusted logistic regression models tested the association between the predictors, SES and comorbidity, and four separate outcomes, namely SF and UF and their associated bother. RESULTS: Of all men, aged 40-79 years, 172 (14.8%) reported poor or very poor ability to have an erection, and for 165 (14.2%), erectile function (EF) was a big or moderate problem. Daily or weekly urinary incontinence was reported by 98 (8.4%) men, and for 94 (8.1%) men, UF was a big or moderate problem. One or more comorbidities were present in 437 (37.6%) men. In age- and SES-adjusted analyses, major depression and diabetes had the most detrimental effect on EF (5.8 [P < 0.001] and 4.8 [P < 0.001], respectively) and on sexual bother (4.3 [P < 0.001] and 7.2 [P < 0.001], respectively). Stroke (4.7 [P = 0.004]) and drug problems (4.8 [P = 0.002]) had the most detrimental effect on urinary incontinence. Alcoholism and alcohol-related problems (3.1 [P = 0.004]) had the most detrimental effect on the urinary bother scale. Finally, SES only affected urinary incontinence, which was poorer in men who lived with a spouse or partner (2.1 [P = 0.03]). CONCLUSION: Select comorbidities have very strong effects on UF and EF. Conversely, for most SES variables, the effect was weak and insignificant. In consequence, when patients are assessed for definitive PCa therapy, comorbidities require an adjustment, whereas SES assessment may potentially be omitted, especially if questionnaire brevity is a consideration.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".