Effect of raloxifene on sexual function in older postmenopausal women with osteoporosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of raloxifene compared with placebo on sexual function in older postmenopausal women undergoing therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: A subset (12%) of English-speaking women in the United States and Canada participating in the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation Trial were asked to complete a sexual function questionnaire at baseline and after 36 months of treatment. The Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation Trial is a multicenter, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, in which 7,705 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomly assigned to one of three groups: raloxifene hydrochloride 60 mg per day or 120 mg per day or placebo. In this substudy, 943 women completed the sexual function questionnaire at both visits. Because preliminary analyses showed no differences by raloxifene dose (n = 302 for 60 mg per day; n = 322 for 120 mg/day), the two groups were combined and compared with the placebo group (n = 319). For the given sample size, we had 80% power (alpha =.05, two-sided, ratio of raloxifene to placebo = 2:1) to detect a 10%-16% difference in the proportion of women experiencing no change in sexual function between placebo and treatment groups. RESULTS: Overall, sexual function and changes in sexual function from baseline to study end between the raloxifene and placebo groups did not differ. In particular, there were no differences in sexual desire or frequency of sexual activity between the groups. Among sexually active women, there were no differences in enjoyment, satisfaction, orgasm, or reported sexual problems. CONCLUSION: Sexual function in older postmenopausal women with osteoporosis is not affected by treatment with raloxifene.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".