MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993016402 · doi:10.2217/1745509x.3.4.527

Salvage Strategies for Nonresponders to Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibitor Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction in the Aging Male

2007· article· en· W1993016402 on OpenAlexaff
William O. Brant, Gerald Brock, Tom F. Lue, Ronald G. Gerridzen, Anthony J Bella

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErectile dysfunctionPenile prosthesiscGMP-specific phosphodiesterase type 5Phosphodiesterase inhibitorInternal medicineUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews contemporary treatment strategies for the aging male who does not demonstrate a satisfactory response to first-line oral phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor agents for erectile dysfunction. More than half of men aged 40–70 years are unable to attain or maintain a penile erection sufficient for satisfactory sexual performance, with the prevalence of erectile dysfunction climbing to more than 75% among those aged over 70 years. However, the aging male may fail to respond to or express dissatisfaction with oral on-demand treatment. Clinically effective phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor salvage strategies include patient re-education, lifestyle changes, correction of risk factors, dose adjustment, agent switching, androgen replacement and/or psychosexual or relationship counseling. Important new data supporting the safe and efficacious use of daily phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor dosing schedules are reviewed. If required, progression to second- and third-line treatments is appropriate for most men, and may include intracavernous penile injections, vacuum erection devices, multimodality therapy or implantation of a penile prosthesis.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging HealthSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207