MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Female Assessment of Male Erectile Dysfunction Detection Scale (FAME): Development and Validation

2009· article· en· W1993809982 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsProstate Cancer CanadaSt Joseph's Health CareLawson Health Research Institute
FundersBayer HealthCare
KeywordsErectile dysfunctionScale (ratio)MedicineGynecologyUrologyInternal medicinePsychologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Although erectile dysfunction (ED) affects both members of the couple, no tools exist for the detection of ED by the female partner. AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a scale for the detection of ED, as assessed by the female partner. METHODS: Development and validation of the Female Assessment of Male Erectile dysfunction detection scale (FAME) consisted of five stages: (i) two focus group discussions conducted among female partners of ED sufferers; (ii) item construction; (iii) initial content validation to document face validity and reduce number of items; (iv) final selection of items and investigation of concurrent validity and reliability, sensitivity and specificity of the scale in 83 Spanish-speaking couples; and (v) multicenter study conducted in a group of 106 English-speaking couples. Concurrent validity was assessed using Spearman's rho correlation coefficients between FAME and clinical diagnosis, the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), and the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF). Reliability was tested using Cronbach's alpha, and sensitivity and specificity was investigated using clinical diagnosis as the gold standard criterion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Validity, reliability, specificity, and sensitivity of the FAME scale when correlated with SHIM, IIEF-EF, and clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis yielded 44 clues; 21 items demonstrated statistical significance as the best discriminating items using a t-test for independent samples. A final scale of six items was tested for validity, reliability, specificity, and sensitivity. FAME correlated significantly with clinical diagnosis (0.791, P < 0.001), the SHIM (0.788, P < 0.001), and the IIEF-EF (0.777, P < 0.001). Additional support for discriminant validity was obtained with receiver operating characteristics analysis. Cronbach's alpha was 0.941. Sensitivity was 96.1% and specificity 86.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate detection of ED in men by the female partner is possible. In this study, FAME demonstrated concurrent validity and very good reliability, as well as excellent sensitivity and specificity.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.286 · 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