Ejaculatory Disorders May Affect Screening for Prostate Cancer
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ejaculatory disorders will be experienced in most men who are treated for localized prostate cancer. Baseline rates of ejaculatory disorders are unknown in men at risk for prostate cancer. Therefore, we explored the prevalence of those disorders and associated bother in men without evidence of prostate cancer who participated in an annual prostate cancer screening event. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 1,273 men without clinical evidence of prostate cancer completed the self-administered Danish Prostate Symptom Score for sexual dysfunction. This questionnaire quantifies the rate of reduced ejaculatory volume, ejaculatory pain and the rate of coexistent erectile dysfunction. RESULTS: Mean age was 57.6 years (range 40 to 89). Of all men 46% (563) had reduced ejaculatory volume and 66% (356) of affected men were bothered by this condition. Ejaculatory pain was reported in 11% (134) and 89% (118) of these men reported associated bother. Finally, 45% (554) reported erectile dysfunction and 73% (403) reported associated bother. Reduced ejaculatory volume was associated with erectile dysfunction (p<0.001) and advanced age (p<0.001). Ejaculatory pain was not associated with one of these variables. CONCLUSIONS: Virtually all men will be affected by ejaculatory disorders after definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer. Therefore, it is important to observe that half of these individuals already have underlying reduced ejaculatory volume before treatment. Moreover, 1 of 10 men will be affected by ejaculatory pain. Both disorders are a significant source of bother and should be considered when treatment related quality of life is assessed.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it