MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027520835 · doi:10.1080/13552600.2014.900121

The effects of common medications on volumetric phallometry

2014· article· en· W2027520835 on OpenAlexaff
Amy D. Lykins, Jennifer J. Robinson, Serge LeBlanc, James M. Cantor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sexual Aggression · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologyInjury preventionSexual intercoursePoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsPedophiliaSuicide preventionPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phallometry is a physiological measure of sexual response widely used for the assessment of paedophilia among sexual offenders. Although many medications decrease penile response sufficiently to interfere with sexual intercourse, it is unknown to what extent such medications might interfere with phallometric testing. In the current study, we utilized a naturalistic convenience sample of 1078 men who attended a clinic for assessment of sexual preferences, mostly related to sexual offence convictions. In the present analyses, we quantified the differences in penile response during phallometric assessment associated with taking a range of common medications. Participants on medication typically showed less penile output than participants not taking medications; however, differences were largely accounted for by age rather than by medication status. Though most medications were associated with decreases in penile responsivity during volumetric phallometric testing, such changes were small in absolute terms and appeared to be associated with ageing rather than with the medications themselves.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sexual AggressionSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207