Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the rationale for treating symptomatic aging men whose testosterone levels are mildly reduced or low-normal with testosterone replacement therapy. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Large-scale multicentre prospective studies on the value of treating andropausal men with hormone therapy do not exist because the whole area of hormone therapy is barely 10 years old. Evidence presented is based on physiologic studies, particularly studies in which treatment has been assessed. These were largely uncontrolled open studies. Studies to date report positive responses to testosterone treatment with very few serious side effects. MAIN MESSAGE: Physicians should consider hypoandrogenism if male patients complain of loss of libido, erectile dysfunction, weakness, fatigue, lethargy, loss of motivation, or mood swings. Less obvious associations with reduced levels of testosterone are anemia and osteoporosis. The main cause of reduced testosterone production is primary gonadal insufficiency, but secondary causes, such as hypothalamic-pituitary disease, should be considered. Evidence shows that most men treated with testosterone will feel better about themselves and their lives. CONCLUSION: Andropause is a term of convenience describing a complex of symptoms in aging men who have low testosterone levels. Physicians should be aware of its existence, should consider ordering tests for men who have symptoms, and should treat carefully selected patients whose serum testosterone levels are low.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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".