MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Men with Mild Erectile Dysfunction Benefit from Sildenafil Treatment

2010· article· en· W1963287803 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)Rockyview General HospitalMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalHôpital Saint-Luc
FundersPfizer CanadaPfizer
KeywordsSildenafilErectile dysfunctionMedicineUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Sildenafil treatment has not been evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) trial specific to men with mild erectile dysfunction (ED), defined by a 22-25 score on the International Index of Erectile Function-erectile function domain (IIEF-EF). AIM: To assess sildenafil efficacy in sexually dissatisfied men with mild ED. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS), IIEF, Quality of Erection Questionnaire (QEQ), Erection Hardness Score (EHS 4=completely hard/fully rigid), general efficacy questions (GEQs), event log questions (hardness sufficient for penetration, duration sufficient for successful intercourse, ejaculation/orgasm, and second erection within 24 hours), and analog scales (erection firmness, reliability, and maintenance, and general sexual performance). METHODS: Eight-week DBPC flexible-dose (25, 50, or 100 mg) trial with 6-week, open-label (OL) extension. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-six men were randomized (mean±standard deviation: age, 50±12 year; ED duration, 3.5±3.2 year). Most had organic or mixed ED. For sildenafil vs. placebo, 66% vs. 89% titrated to 100 mg and efficacy at DBPC end was better, including the EDITS Index score (least squares mean [standard error], 80.3 [2.3] vs. 62.1 [2.5]; P<0.0001); treatment satisfaction (EDITS Index score >50 in 89% vs. 63%; P=0.0001); no ED (IIEF-EF ≥26 in 58% vs. 39%; P<0.05); GEQs (≥4.9-fold greater odds of improved erections and ability to have sexual intercourse); and EHS 4 (47.2% vs. 25.2% of occasions; P<0.0001). At OL end, 93% of men were satisfied (EDITS Index score>50), 77% had no ED, and ≥89% were GEQ responders; mean scores on IIEF domains, the QEQ, and analog scales were >80% of the maximum; 60% of occasions had EHS 4; and event log responses were positive on >80% of occasions, except for second erections (41.9%). Headache, nasal congestion, and flushing, mostly mild to moderate, were the most common adverse events. CONCLUSION: Men with mild ED derive substantial benefit from sildenafil 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.254 · 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