Sexual Risk Behaviors among Men Who Have Sex with Men Using Erectile Dysfunction Medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined relationships between use of the phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors (erectile dysfunction medications) sildenafil (Viagra), Pfizer, New York, NY), tadalafil (Cialis), Eli Lily, Indianapolis, IN), and/or vardenafil (Levitra), Bayer, Berlin, Germany), substance use, perceptions of risk, and sexual behavior in men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM (N = 342) attending a gay pride festival completed a brief survey assessing sexual behavior, risk perceptions, and substance use, including the use and the source of PDE-5 inhibitors. More than a quarter of the sample (26.3%, n = 89) reported having ever used a PDE-5 inhibitor. Those reporting use of PDE-5 inhibitors had higher rates of sexual risk behaviors and differed in their assessment of the risk of HIV transmission for unprotected anal sex. Users who received PDE-5 inhibitors from their doctors did not report sexual behaviors that differed significantly from those who received PDE-5 inhibitors from nonphysician sources. In a sequential logistic regression analysis, recent PDE-5 inhibitor use was associated with unprotected anal sex after accounting for the influence of age, education, ethnic identity, and substance use. Many MSM users of erectile dysfunction drugs report behaviors that may place their and others' health at risk. Interventions to reduce risk among MSM PDE-5 inhibitor users should be explored.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".