Sexual functioning in men living with a spinal cord injury–A narrative literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is a major concern for Indian men living with a spinal cord injury. OBJECTIVES: To examine the literature related to sexuality traumatic cord injury and its impact on sexual functioning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases using Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) 2000-2012, Medline 1989-2012, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) 1989-2012 and Google Scholar were the search engines used used for literature review. RESULTS: The search yielded a total of 457 articles and only 75 of them were found relevant. The minimum number of articles required to meet the inclusion criteria for this review was 25-30 articles. Out of the 75 articles, 33 were considered relevant or related to the topic of sexual functioning, spinal cord injury, and paraplegia. Six areas were identified: Sexual stigmatization, physiological barriers to sexual satisfaction, clinical aspects of sexual functioning, biomedical approaches to sexual dysfunction, partner satisfaction, and lack of accessibility to sexual education. CONCLUSION: Spinal cord injury and sexual functioning affects a large segment of the male Indian population, yet most current research focuses on quantitative measurement with the emphasis on ejaculatory dysfunction, orgasm impairment, incontinence, and other physiological dysfunction. Further research is needed to address the subjective accounts of patients themselves with respect to the emotional and social impact of sexual disability. This would help to identify the best possible outcomes for both treatment and rehabilitation.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".