MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Erectile Dysfunction: Monitoring Response to Treatment in Clinical Practice—Recommendations of an International Study Panel

2007· article· en· W2082055010 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMilton District HospitalSt Joseph's Health Care
FundersAstellas Foundation for Research on Metabolic DisordersPfizer
KeywordsErectile dysfunctionPsychosocialMedicinePatient satisfactionErectile functionConfidence intervalPhysical therapyClinical trialClinical psychologyInternal medicineSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines for management of erectile dysfunction (ED) provide limited direction in defining appropriate treatment goals with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor therapy. AIM: To establish an evidence-based position on treatment goals in ED, including the role of erection hardness, with the potential to improve self-esteem, confidence, and overall sexual and relationship satisfaction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The target of ED therapy is optimization of a rigid erectile response, as assessed by the 4-point Erection Hardness Score (EHS). Methods. An international panel of experts in urology, psychology, and primary care convened to evaluate retrospective data from worldwide phase 2, 3, and 4 clinical trials, involving over 10,000 men with ED, as well as data from recent prospective studies, concerning the role of erection hardness in defining the response to treatment with PDE5 therapy. RESULTS: Significant positive correlations were found between EHS and the Quality of Erection Questionnaire and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) erectile function domain score and other IIEF measures. Significant positive correlations were also found between erection hardness and psychosocial measures such as self-esteem, confidence, and relationship satisfaction (assessed by the Self-Esteem And Relationship questionnaire), and satisfaction with medical treatment (assessed by the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction). A shift in most frequent erection from EHS 3 (hard enough for penetration but not fully hard) at baseline to EHS 4 (completely hard and fully rigid) at the end of treatment was accompanied by significant improvements in intercourse and relationship satisfaction, psychosocial benefits, and satisfaction with ED treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Support is found for monitoring and treating patients with ED to their full erectile potential. Quantitative assessment of erection hardness in clinical practice will lead to improved outcomes in overall sexual experience and optimal treatment satisfaction.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.290 · 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