The multinational Men's Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality (MALES) study: I. Prevalence oSf erectile dysfunction and related health concerns in the general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of the Men's Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality (MALES) study were to identify prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and related health issues in the general male population in Europe, North and South America, and to examine the attitudes and behavior of men in relation to these health issues. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Phase I of the MALES study involved 27839 men aged 20-75 years who were interviewed in eight countries (United States, United Kingdom, Germany,France, Italy, Spain, Mexico, and Brazil) using a standardized questionnaire. Phase II of the MALES study involved 2912 men who were recruited from the sub-sample of Phase I MALES participants who reported ED together with additional men with ED recruited from other sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence of ED and associated attitudes. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of ED in the MALES sample was 16%. ED prevalence varied markedly by country, however, from a high of 22%of men in the US reporting ED to a low of 10% in Spain. The prevalence of self-reported ED increased with increasing age. Men with co-morbid medical conditions and risk factors, including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia,and depression all reported higher prevalence of ED. Men with ED also reported increased prevalence rates of these co-morbid conditions. MALES Phase II data indicated that among men who reported ED, 58% had actively sought medical attention for their condition; however, only 16% of men with ED were currently being treated with oral PDE-5 therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The MALES study confirms the high prevalence rates of ED and its association with co-morbid medical conditions, such as diabetes and depression, reported in other large-scale, epidemiological studies. Despite the advent of oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors, only 58% of ED sufferers consult a physician about their problem, and only 16% of men with self-reported ED maintain their use of oral therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".