Assessment methods and management of hypersexuality and paraphilic disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The recent implementation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition introduced some important changes in the conceptualization of hypersexuality and paraphilic disorders. The destigmatization of nonnormative sexual behaviors could be viewed as positive, However, other changes are more controversial. In order to stimulate new research approaches and provide mental healthcare providers with appropriate treatment regimes, validated assessment and treatment methods are needed. The purpose of this article is to review the studies published between January 2013 and July 2014 that aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of the currently applied assessment instruments and treatment approaches for hypersexuality and hypersexual disorders or paraphilias and paraphilic disorder. RECENT FINDINGS: Currently existing instruments can validly assess hypersexual behaviors in different populations (e.g. college students, gay and bisexual men, and patients with neurodegenerative disorders) and cultural backgrounds (e.g. Germany, Spain, and USA). Concerning the assessment of paraphilias, it was shown that combining different assessment methods show a better performance in distinguishing between patients with paraphilias and control groups. In addition to psychotherapeutic treatment, pharmacological agents aiming at a reduction of serum testosterone levels are used for hypersexual behaviors as well as paraphilic disorders. SUMMARY: Although the currently applied assessment and treatment methods seem to perform quite well, more research about the assessment and evidence-based treatment is needed. This would help to overcome the existing unresolved issues concerning the conceptualization of hypersexual and paraphilic disorders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".