MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Standards for Clinical Trials in Sexual Dysfunction in Women: Research Designs and Outcomes Assessment

2010· review· en· W2094446562 on OpenAlexaff
Anita H. Clayton, Lorraine Dennerstein, William A. Fisher, Sheryl A. Kingsberg, Michael A. Perelman, Robert E. Pyke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryClinical trialPopulationFemale sexual dysfunctionClinical study designMedicineClinical psychologyResearch designPsychologyChecklistDistressClinical researchPsychiatrySexual dysfunctionDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trial design in female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is an evolving science, with some areas of controversy. AIM: To develop an evidence-based, expert consensus-report on design of FSD clinical research. METHODS: Literature review including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical trial guidelines with critique by six experts from three countries, modified after public presentation and debate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Expert opinion and recommendations were based on grading of evidence based literature, internal committee dialogue, open presentation, and debate. RESULTS: Design of clinical research for regulatory approval is driven by FDA guidelines. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV definitions and consideration of comorbidity of sexual disorders may complicate patient selection and outcomes. Measures for study end points include satisfying sexual events utilizing a daily diary, sexual distress, and patient-reported outcomes measures of the construct under study. Currently, trial duration is recommended to be 6 months for efficacy trials to allow for modification of behavioral adaptations to changes in desire. Important issues include safety assessments, generalizability, having a representative study population, stratification by reproductive status, partner assessment, contextual and interpersonal factors, symptom duration and severity, management of placebo response, and drug dosing. Statistical analysis should include assessment of change from baseline to end point between study drug and placebo, determination of statistically significant change vs. clinically meaningful effects, linear mapping of all measures of the same construct, and determination of responders and remitters. CONCLUSIONS: Future trials should include clear population definitions, direct and indirect measures of the specific FSD construct, and procedures to allow generalizability of diagnosis and treatment to the target population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.789
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.823
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7890.823
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0150.008
Open science0.0100.009
Research integrity0.0200.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.677
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.026 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207