Efficacy of tadalafil once daily in men with diabetes mellitus and erectile dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common comorbidity in men with diabetes mellitus. Tadalafil 10 or 20 mg taken on demand is efficacious and safe for men with diabetes and ED. Recently, continuous treatment with tadalafil has been proposed, addressing ED management as any other chronic condition. This study examined whether once-daily tadalafil 2.5 and 5 mg is efficacious for men with diabetes and ED. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, 12-week study enrolled 298 men with diabetes and ED to once-daily treatment with placebo, tadalafil 2.5 mg or tadalafil 5 mg. Primary efficacy measures were International Index of Erectile Function Erectile Function (IIEF EF) Domain score, and patient success rates for vaginal penetration and completion of intercourse. Patient satisfaction, endothelial function biomarkers, and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Patients receiving either dose of tadalafil had clinically and statistically significant improvements in IIEF EF and statistically significant improvements in mean success rates for vaginal penetration, completion of intercourse, and overall treatment satisfaction (P < or = 0.005 tadalafil vs. placebo, all measures). Endothelial dysfunction biomarkers were unchanged. The most common adverse events were headache, back pain and dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS: In this first study of men with diabetes and ED, once-daily tadalafil 2.5 and 5 mg was efficacious and well tolerated, suggesting this may be an alternative to on-demand treatment for some men, eliminating the need to plan sex within a limited timeframe.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".