Examining Penile Sensitivity in Neonatally Circumcised and Intact Men Using Quantitative Sensory Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known about the long-term implications of neonatal circumcision on the penile sensitivity of adult men, despite recent public policy endorsing the procedure in the United States. In the current study we assessed penile sensitivity in adult men by comparing peripheral nerve function of the penis across circumcision status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 62 men (age 18 to 37 years, mean 24.2, SD 5.1) completed study procedures (30 circumcised, 32 intact). Quantitative sensory testing protocols were used to assess touch and pain thresholds (modified von Frey filaments) and warmth detection and heat pain thresholds (a thermal analyzer) at a control site (forearm) and 3 to 4 penile sites (glans penis, midline shaft, proximal to midline shaft and foreskin, if present). RESULTS: Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site. The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites, but this finding did not extend to any other stimuli (where foreskin sensitivity was comparable to the other sites tested). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that minimal long-term implications for penile sensitivity exist as a result of the surgical excision of the foreskin during neonatal circumcision. Additionally, this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the adult penis. Future research should consider the direct link between penile sensitivity and the perception of pleasure/sensation. Results are relevant to policy makers, parents of male children and the general public.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".