MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictors of Sexual Desire Disorders in Women

2010· article· en· W1915020548 on OpenAlexafffund
Lori A. Brotto, A. John Petkau, Fernand Labrie, Rosemary Basson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTestosterone (patch)Sexual desirePsychologySexual arousalHypoactive sexual desire disorderBiopsychosocial modelMoodHormonePsychosexual developmentClinical psychologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineHuman sexualityPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologySexual behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A historic belief was that testosterone was the "hormone of desire." However, recent data, which show either minimal or no significant correlation between testosterone levels and women's sexual desire, suggest that nonhormonal variables may play a key role. AIM: To compare women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) and those with the recently proposed more symptomatic desire disorder, Sexual Desire/Interest Disorder (SDID), on the relative contribution of hormonal vs. nonhormonal variables. METHODS: Women with HSDD (N = 58, mean age 52.5) or SDID (N = 52, mean age 50.9) participated in a biopsychosocial assessment in which six nonhormonal domains were evaluated for the degree of involvement in the current low desire complaints. Participants provided a serum sample of hormones analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to assess the ability of variables (nonhormonal: history of sexual abuse, developmental history, psychosexual history, psychiatric status, medical history, and sexual/relationship-related factors; hormonal: dehydroepiandrosterone [DHEA], 5-diol, 4-dione, testosterone, 5-α-dihydrotestosterone, androsterone glucuronide, 3α-diol-3G, 3α-diol-17G, and DHEA-S; and demographic: age, relationship length) to predict group membership. RESULTS: Women with SDID had significantly lower sexual desire and arousal scores, but the groups did not differ on relationship satisfaction or mood. Addition of the hormonal variables to the two demographic variables (age, relationship length) did not significantly increase predictive capability. However, the addition of the six nonhormonal variables to these two sets of predictors significantly increased ability to predict group status. Developmental history, psychiatric history, and psychosexual history added significantly to the predictive capability provided by the basic model when examined individually. CONCLUSIONS: Nonhormonal variables added significant predictive capability to the basic model, highlighting the importance of their assessment clinically where women commonly have SDID in addition to HSDD, and emphasizing the importance of addressing psychological factors in treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207