MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152675617 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.019

Responsiveness and Minimum Important Differences for the Erection Quality Scale

2007· article· en· W2152675617 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond C. Rosen, John P. Wincze, Martin D. Mollen, Lori McLeod, William A. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScale (ratio)ManagementGerontologyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We evaluated the responsiveness and treatment sensitivity of the Erection Quality Scale, and provided further psychometric validation of this scale. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 8-week, placebo controlled, randomized clinical trial investigating the efficacy and safety of vardenafil in patients with erectile dysfunction was performed. The Erection Quality Scale, together with a number of other patient and partner questionnaires, was administered at a screening visit, at baseline, and weeks 4 and 8 of treatment. Erection Quality Scale responsiveness was investigated by evaluating treatment induced changes and modeling using ANCOVA. Internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and minimum important difference of the Erection Quality Scale were also assessed. RESULTS: Efficacy evaluations demonstrated that the Erection Quality Scale was sufficiently responsive to differentiate the treatment benefits of vardenafil compared with placebo. Internal consistency for the Erection Quality Scale total score was similar across visits, with values high enough to suggest reliability of items included in the scale. Discriminant validity of the Erection Quality Scale total score was demonstrated, with a high correlation with the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (0.88, p <0.0001) and negligible correlations with clinical measures assumed to be unrelated to erection quality. All Erection Quality Scale total score comparisons substantially exceeded the 5-point minimum important difference estimate. CONCLUSIONS: The Erection Quality Scale was responsive and internally consistent, and demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity. Furthermore, this instrument provided a unique contribution to the measurement of erection quality compared to the International Index of Erectile Function. This study provides strong evidence supporting the use of the Erection Quality Scale in clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207