How to Evaluate the Efficacy of the Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several methods have been so far proposed to compare the effectiveness of the three available phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is). METHODS: Two urologists (E.C. and G.B.B.), together with the Controversy's Editor (E.A.J.), with expertise in the area of medical treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) present the various perspectives on the evaluation of PDE5Is in ED. The use of the most popular psychometric tool, the International Index of Erectile Function, is presented by an expert psychologist (L.R.D.). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Expert opinion supported by the critical review of the currently available literature. RESULTS: Trials have demonstrated that the PDE5Is are excellent drugs with a great specificity of action and an almost perfect tolerance profile. Some instruments for comparison of clinical efficacy have to be considered subjective (psychometry, patient's preference, changes in quality of general, or sexual life). Some others are more objective (hardness, hormonal levels, and local circulation). An evidence-based comparison of the three PDE5Is should in the future be rooted in both subjective and objective methods. This will be of paramount importance in the drug trial design of new, forthcoming PDE5Is. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison between PDE5Is using both subjective and objective parameters will permit to individuate, on the basis of the evidence, the subset of couples where one drug, or one dose, or dose regimen, is to be considered of first choice.
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 | 0.064 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".