Sexual Dysfunction in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual dysfunction is an under-recognized problem in men and women with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Epidemiologic findings were inconclusive regarding the risk for sexual dysfunction associated with OSA. AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the association between OSA and sexual dysfunction. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for observational studies on the OSA and the risk of sexual dysfunction. The methodologic quality of the case-control and cohort studies was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The cross-sectional study quality methodology checklist was used for cross-sectional study. Data were pooled for the random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess potential bias. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The association between OSA and sexual dysfunction was summarized using relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 1,275 participants from nine studies. Five studies reported the incidence of erectile dysfunction (ED); the remaining four studies reported the incidence of female sexual dysfunction (FSD). Pooled results demonstrated that OSA was associated with increased risk of ED (pooled RR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.12-2.97) as well as FSD (pooled RR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.29-3.08). Estimates of the total effects were generally consistent in the sensitivity analysis. No evidence of publication bias was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the observational studies suggested that OSA individuals might have an increased incidence of sexual dysfunction despite significant heterogeneity. More researches are warranted to clarify the relationship between OSA and the increased risk of sexual dysfunction.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".