The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for the biological treatment of paraphilias
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
OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of these guidelines was to evaluate the role of pharmacological agents in the treatment and management of paraphilia, with a focus on the treatment of adults males. Because such treatments are not delivered in isolation, the role of specific psychosocial and psychotherapeutic interventions was also briefly covered. These guidelines are intended for use in clinical practice by clinicians who diagnose and treat patients with paraphilia. The aim of these guidelines is to improve the quality of care and to aid physicians in clinical decisions. METHODS: The aim of these guidelines was to bring together different views on the appropriate treatment of paraphilias from experts representing different continents. To achieve this aim, an extensive literature search was conducted using the English language literature indexed on MEDLINE/PubMed (1990-2009 for SSRIs) (1969-2009 for antiandrogen treatments), supplemented by other sources, including published reviews. RESULTS: Each treatment recommendation was evaluated and discussed with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy, safety, tolerability and feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm was proposed with six levels of treatment for different categories of paraphilias.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it