Development and evaluation of a prostate sexual rehabilitation clinic: a pilot project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a sexual rehabilitation service for men with prostate cancer and to use these results to inform the development of future care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study participants included 155 men with prostate cancer referred to a sexual rehabilitation clinic by their urologists or radiation oncologists, of whom the partners of 58 were in attendance. Questionnaires to measure sexual function and positive feelings towards the partner were completed before the clinic visit; and for satisfaction with the clinic service immediately after the appointment; and for sexual function, positive feelings towards the partner, and satisfaction with treatments at 4 months afterward. RESULTS: Ninety patients completed the 4-month evaluation, of whom 35 were couples. Enhancement of erection and understanding sexual changes related to treatment were the two main concerns of patients. Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors and intracavernosal injections were the treatments of choice. Compared with partners, patients had significantly greater positive feelings towards their partners at both measurement times and were more satisfied with their prescribed treatment. The total scores on sexual function were significantly higher at 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the need to include partners as a necessary part of these men's sexual rehabilitation. A structured follow-up is necessary to monitor the success of treatment and to document the quality of erection.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".