Inappropriate sexual behavior in a geriatric population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate sexual behavior (ISB) is an important topic in geriatrics; etiologies remain unclear and evidence for the efficacy of treatment strategies is limited. The aims of this study were to provide a description of the phenomenology of ISB in the geriatric population, to identify potential contributing factors, and to review the efficacy of interventions aimed at reducing ISB. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of ten patients admitted to an academic inpatient geriatric psychiatry ward because of their ISB (study group) and ten patients matched in age and gender (control group). A comprehensive chart review inventory was done to determine variables that may contribute to ISB. For the study group, effectiveness, adverse effects, and discontinuation due to adverse effects of interventions aimed at reducing ISB were reviewed. RESULTS: A significant finding was the association of a history of right frontal lobe stroke with ISB (Fisher's Exact Probability Test p < 0.05). Also significant was performance on cognitive testing and the presence of dementia (Fisher's Exact Probability Test p < 0.05) in the study group. Citalopram was well tolerated but with minimal reduction of ISB. Atypical antipsychotics olanzapine and risperidone were effective in some cases but also had adverse effects. Medroxyprogesterone acetate was well tolerated and effective in all cases in which it was utilized (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that ISB in the geriatric population is associated with a history of right frontal lobe stroke and with severity of dementia. Case examples of pharmacologic interventions are reviewed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".