Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors and Female Sexual Response: Faulty Protocols or Paradigms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5), such as sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil, have revolutionized the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Few successes, in contrast, have been reported for the use of these agents in treatment of sexual arousal problems in women. AIM: To review research examining efficacy of PDE5 in women, critique the methods and models employed, and integrate the findings within a broader, gender-specific understanding of female sexual response. METHODS: A conceptual and methodological review of all published studies examining PDE5 efficacy in female samples. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study methods, populations, outcome measures, study results. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were reviewed. Studies using self-reported measures of sexual functioning showed mixed results whereas studies examining physiological effects of PDE5 on genital vasocongestion consistently report significant effects on genital sexual response. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of efficacy of PDE5 treatment in women is likely attributable to gender differences in the concordance between physiological and psychological components of sexual response. Discordance between genital and subjective measures of sexual response in women may be augmented by PDE5 effects on genital vasocongestion in some populations, rendering successful treatment unlikely via pharmacological treatment alone.
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 | 0.032 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".