Hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction: pathophysiological observations and therapeutic outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Androgens have a profound effect in male sexual function in general and erectile physiology in particular. Despite the common belief that male sexuality is fully dependent on normal androgens, hypogonadal men are capable of sexual erections; almost a third of men receiving effective antiandrogen therapy can develop erections when tested with an erotic challenge. However, successful hormonal supplementation that results in normal testosterone values does not always restore libido and erectile function. Although the primary goal of treatment for hypogonadism may be to restore sexual function, there will be other significant benefits and potential drawbacks. Libido, general well-being, osteoporosis, muscle strength, mental acuity, and growth hormone levels will all be positively affected by appropriate management of low testosterone levels. Testosterone replacement therapy should maintain not only physiological levels of serum testosterone but also its metabolites, including dihydrotestosterone and oestradiol. The assessment of hypogonadism, its treatment and monitoring, are unavoidable responsibilities of the urologist.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".