The Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction in the Primary Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and associated risk factors has been described in many clinical settings, but there is little information regarding men seen by primary care physicians. We sought to identify independent factors associated with ED in a primary care setting. METHODS: We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of 3921 Canadian men, aged 40 to 88 years, seen by primary care physicians. Participants completed a full medical history, physical examination, and measurement of fasting blood glucose and lipid levels. We used the International Index of Erectile Function to define ED as a score of less than 26 on the erectile function domain. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of ED was 49.4%. The presence of cardiovascular disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.81; P<.01) or diabetes (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.16; P<.001) increased the probability of ED after adjustment for other confounders. Among those individuals without cardiovascular disease or diabetes, the calculated 10-year Framingham coronary risk (OR, 1.03 per 1% increase; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05; P<.001) and fasting blood glucose levels (OR, 1.14 per 18-mg/dL [1-mmol/L] increase; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P<.01) were independently associated with ED. Erectile dysfunction was also independently associated with undiagnosed hyperglycemia (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.02-2.10; P = .04), impaired fasting glucose (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.46; P = .004), and the metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.24-1.69; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, future coronary risk, and increasing fasting glucose levels are independently associated with ED. It remains to be determined if ED precedes the development of these conditions.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".