SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: PREVALENCE, TREATMENTS, RESTRICTED USE OF TREATMENTS AND DISTRESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".