Efficacy and Safety of Topical Alprostadil Cream for the Treatment of Female Sexual Arousal Disorder (FSAD): A Double-Blind, Multicenter, Randomized, and Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the efficacy and safety of three doses of a novel alprostadil cream in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 94 women presenting with female sexual arousal disorder of at least 6 month s duration. We sent the subjects home with 10 premeasured doses of 500 g, 1000 g, or 1500 g alprostadil or a placebo cream to be applied to the vulvar area prior to vaginal intercourse over a period of 6 weeks. The primary efficacy parameter, the arousal success rate (as measured by diary responses to the Female Sexual Encounter Profile [FSEP]), was highest in the alprostadil 1000 g group and lowest in the 500 g group, but the responses were not different from that of the placebo cream, at the p = 0.05 level, for any of the three alprostadil doses. However, the change from baseline for Item 6 of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI; Rosen et al., 2000; satisfaction with arousal during sexual activity) suggested an important dose-related trend (p = 0.173; 1500 g versus placebo). The mean percent responder rate (responder = > 50% arousal success rate with > 3 sexual attempts) suggested a dose-response effect (p = 0.157; 1500 g versus placebo). Adverse events were generally mild or moderate in intensity and mainly involved localized reactions in the genital area.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".