Summary of the Recommendations on Sexual Dysfunctions in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual health is an integral part of overall health. Sexual dysfunction can have a major impact on quality of life and psychosocial and emotional well-being. AIM: To provide evidence-based, expert-opinion consensus guidelines for clinical management of sexual dysfunction in men. METHODS: An international consultation collaborating with major urologic and sexual medicine societies convened in Paris, July 2009. More than 190 multidisciplinary experts from 33 countries were assembled into 25 consultation committees. Committee members established scope and objectives for each chapter. Following an exhaustive review of available data and publications, committees developed evidence-based guidelines in each area. Main Outcome Measures. New algorithms and guidelines for assessment and treatment of sexual dysfunctions were developed based on work of previous consultations and evidence from scientific literature published from 2003 to 2009. The Oxford system of evidence-based review was systematically applied. Expert opinion was based on systematic grading of medical literature, and cultural and ethical considerations. RESULTS: Algorithms, recommendations, and guidelines for sexual dysfunction in men are presented. These guidelines were developed in an evidence-based, patient-centered, multidisciplinary manner. It was felt that all sexual dysfunctions should be evaluated and managed following a uniform strategy, thus the International Consultation of Sexual Medicine (ICSM-5) developed a stepwise diagnostic and treatment algorithm for sexual dysfunction. The main goal of ICSM-5 is to unmask the underlying etiology and/or indicate appropriate treatment options according to men's and women's individual needs (patient-centered medicine) using the best available data from population-based research (evidence-based medicine). Specific evaluation, treatment guidelines, and algorithms were developed for every sexual dysfunction in men, including erectile dysfunction; disorders of libido, orgasm, and ejaculation; Peyronie's disease; and priapism. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual dysfunction in men represents a group of common medical conditions that need to be managed from a multidisciplinary perspective.
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 | 0.019 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.009 |
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".