Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the sexual consequences of prostate cancer and its treatments (prostatectomy, external beam radiation, brachytherapy, androgen deprivation therapy) and to suggest treatments for sexual side effects of these therapies. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Most studies of the sexual consequences of prostate cancer treatments and studies of therapy for these side effects provide level II evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: Diagnosis of prostate cancer in itself can cause sexual dysfunction. All forms of treatment for this cancer cause serious sexual problems for men. Treatments for the erectile dysfunction that results have varying success rates. Prostatectomy has been shown to cause erectile dysfunction in 30% to 98% of men, depending on whether both, one, or neither nerve bundles was spared. Radiation therapy results in erectile dysfunction in more than 70% of those treated; brachytherapy produces the least amount of sexual deficit. Hormone ablation therapy has serious consequences: more than 80% of men report loss of erections at 1 year after therapy in addition to profound loss of libido. CONCLUSION: Family physicians are ideally placed to provide anticipatory guidance to men with prostate cancer on the sexual consequences of both the cancer and its treatments. Family physicians can also assist men and their partners in managing these sexual side effects.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".