Prevalence and prognostic factors for erectile dysfunction in renal transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) at our institution in the postrenal transplant population and to compare those patients who had ED with those who did not have ED, with respect to several patient characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of male renal transplant recipients who were in attendance at the transplant clinic from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2006. Erectile function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function short form questionnaire. Patients were also screened for depression using the Beck Depression Inventory. We performed a chart review to obtain various patient characteristics. RESULTS: This study involved 55 patients. Their average age was 50 years old and the mean duration of the current transplant was 7.9 years. ED was identified in 28 of the patients (51%). More patients with ED were over age 50 years (64% v. 26%, p = 0.004). There was a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (39% v. 11%, p = 0.02) in patients with ED compared with those patients without ED. More patients with ED were depressed compared with those patients who did not have ED (29% v. 7%, p = 0.04). These 3 factors were significantly associated with ED and this relationship was confirmed on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: ED remains a common problem in the renal transplant population. The cause of ED is multifactorial, with increasing age and the presence of diabetes mellitus and depression increasing the risk of ED.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".