Sexual Function in Chronic Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Direct and indirect effects of chronic disease on sexual health are frequent and complex, but guidelines for their optimal management are lacking. With improved surgical and medical treatment of the underlying disease, the numbers of men and women needing assessment and management of associated sexual dysfunction are increasing. AIM: To provide recommendations/guidelines for the clinical management of sexual dysfunction within the context of chronic illness. METHODS: An international consultation in collaboration with the major sexual medicine associations assembled 186 multidisciplinary experts from 33 countries into 25 committees. Nine experts from four countries compiled the recommendations of sexual dysfunction in chronic illness and cancer with four focusing on neurological, renal, and psychiatric disease and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, Lilacs, and Pubmed databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Expert opinion was based on grading of evidence-based medical literature, widespread internal committee discussion, public presentation, and debate. RESULTS: Some conclusions concerning prevalence and pathophysiology of sexual dysfunction in the context of neurological disorders, end-stage renal failure, LUTS, and psychiatric disease were made. Optimal assessment of the multiple factors affecting sexuality when one or both partners are chronically ill is outlined. Evidence-based recommendations for management are presented. Comorbid depression is frequent and independently determines prevalence of sexual dysfunction in many conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There is need for more research and scientific reporting on prevalence, pathophysiology, and optimal treatment of sexual dysfunction associated with chronic illness. Screening for and managing comorbid depression is strongly recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".