Comments on “Considerations for an Evidence-Based Definition of Premature Ejaculation in the DSM-V”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author of this article is to be congratulated for the impeccable timing and the issues that he brings for consideration. For some of us with long memories in the field of sexual medicine, it appears that the understanding of the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and therapeutics of premature ejaculation (PE) is at the developmental stage of knowledge that erectile dysfunction (ED) was at the time of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Impotence in 1992 [ 1 National Institutes of Health Consensus development conference statement National Institutes of Health impotence. Int J Impot Res. 1993; 5: 181-199 PubMed Google Scholar , 2 Morales A. Heaton J.P.W. Comments on medical therapy with emphasis on the treatment of hypogonadal states to the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement on Impotence. Int J Impot Res. 1993; 5: 253-354 Google Scholar ]. From semantics to diagnostic techniques and from definition to therapy, the similarities are conspicuous. The definition of the condition itself is under question, the diagnostic paraphernalia primitive or inconsistent producing conflicting results [ 3 Salonia A. Saccá A. Briganti A. Del Carro U. Dehò F. Quantitative sensory testing of peripheral thresholds in patients with lifelong premature ejaculation: A case controlled study. J Sex Med. 2009; 6: 1755-1762 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar ] and the treatments that are largely nonspecific [ 4 Sadeghi-Nejad H. Watson R. Premature ejaculation: Current medical treatment. J Sex Med. 2008; 5: 1037-1050 Crossref PubMed Scopus (56) Google Scholar ].
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".