MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: PREVALENCE, TREATMENTS, RESTRICTED USE OF TREATMENTS AND DISTRESS

2005· review· en· W2002955825 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 Urology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCancer Care OntarioUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyDistressSexual dysfunctionUrologyErectile dysfunctionProstate cancerClinical psychologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Cancer of the prostate (CAP) is one of the most common malignancies affecting North American men with about 215,000 new cases and 35,800 CAP related deaths annually. The most prevalent intervention for localized CAP is radical prostatectomy (RP) with 10-year survival rates approaching 90%. Studies of men in post-RP recovery indicate that 44% to 75% experience sexual dysfunction and more than 60% experience distress in reaction to sexual dysfunction problems. These findings are increasingly significant as prostate specific antigen testing continues to increase CAP detection rates, resulting in more and younger post-RP patients confronting sexual dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE database search was performed for articles published from 1966 to September 2004. RESULTS: Despite effectiveness 30% to 50% of patients who turn to sexually assistive aids after RP discontinue use within a year. This suggests that the achievement of physical responsiveness to an aid is necessary but it is not a sufficient factor in long-term sexual adaptation. Current research exploring this gap between effectiveness and ongoing use supports a broader perspective of sexual dysfunction emphasizing several factors, including perceptions of inadequacy, anxieties in regard to performance and depression in each member of the couple, overly enthusiastic expectations, partner physical/emotional readiness to resume active sex, the meaning to the couple of using a sexual aid and the quality of the nonsexual relationship of the couple. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal the need to explore broader strategies for improving patient coping ability and adaptation. They also point to the need to explore the role of resumed satisfying sexuality in overall quality of life following treatment.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.273 · 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