Associations Among Physiological and Subjective Sexual Response, Sexual Desire, and Salivary Steroid Hormones in Healthy Premenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have examined how sexual arousal influences healthy premenopausal women's hormones, limiting our understanding of basic physiology and our ability to transfer knowledge from clinical and nonhuman populations. AIM: To examine how sexual arousal and steroid hormones (testosterone [T], cortisol [C], estradiol [E]) were linked, to see whether hormone levels influenced and/or changed in response to sexual arousal elicited via visual erotic stimuli in healthy women. METHODS: Participants included 40 healthy premenopausal women not using exogenous hormones. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in genital sexual arousal (vaginal pulse amplitude), change in subjective sexual arousal, sexual desire (via the Sexual Desire Inventory and Female Sexual Function Index scales), as well as T, C, and E via saliva samples taken before and following viewing of erotic stimuli as genital arousal was recorded via a vaginal photoplethysmograph. RESULTS: E increased in response to sexual stimuli but this was not statistically associated with genital sexual arousal, whereas C decreased in association with genital sexual arousal, and T showed no statistically significant change. Relationship status was linked to genital but not subjective sexual arousal such that dating women exhibited higher genital sexual arousal than single or partnered women. Results indicated that all three hormones were associated with self-reported genital arousal (via the Detailed Assessment of Sexual Arousal scales) and sexual desire in different domains, and both T and E were associated with self-reported orgasms. CONCLUSION: Findings point to the need to examine multiple hormones in multiple ways (e.g., baseline, changes, stimulated) and question using erotic stimuli-induced arousal as a model for women's endocrine responses to sexuality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".