Vardenafil in Patients With Erectile Dysfunction: Achieving Treatment Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study determined how many attempts were needed to record at least 1 successful penetration and maintenance of erection long enough for successful intercourse in a broad population of men with erectile dysfunction taking vardenafil at 5, 10, or 20 mg or placebo. The cumulative probability of achieving successful penetration and of maintaining an erection increased with the number of attempts for all 3 vardenafil groups. For the first attempt, the probability of achieving successful penetration was higher in all 3 vardenafil groups compared with placebo; 67% in the 5-mg vardenafil group, 77% in the 10-mg vardenafil group, and 74% in the 20-mg vardenafil group compared with 46% for placebo. By the third attempt, the probability of at least 1 success was 82% for 5, 88% for 10, and 85% for 20 mg vardenafil compared with 68% for placebo. The probability of maintaining an erection long enough to complete intercourse at the first attempt was 51% for 5, 69% for 10, and 61% for 20 mg vardenafil compared with 28% for the placebo group. By the third attempt, the probability of maintaining an erection was 66% for 5, 81% for 10, and 77% for 20 mg vardenafil in contrast to 53% for placebo. The results of this analysis indicate that patients without initial treatment success should continue treatment or increase the dose because the cumulative probability of success increases with additional attempts with vardenafil, with a plateau at about the fourth dose.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".