MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267993363 · doi:10.1177/1074248415598321

Antihypertensive Drugs and Male Sexual Dysfunction

2015· review· en· W2267993363 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPan American Health OrganizationRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
KeywordsMedicineThiazideGuidelineErectile dysfunctionSexual medicineSexual dysfunctionIntensive care medicineDrug classPriapismInternal medicineGynecologyPharmacologyDrugPsychiatryBlood pressurePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Published clinical practice guidelines have addressed antihypertensive therapy and sexual dysfunction (SD) in many different ways. OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we evaluated guidelines that address antihypertensive drug-associated SD, guideline recommendations, and recent guideline trends. METHODS: Thirty sets of guidelines for hypertension management in adults that had been published in the English language since 2000 were reviewed. The primary outcome measure was antihypertensive-associated SD potential, which was independently evaluated using specific questions by 2 authors in a nonblinded standardized manner. RESULTS: Sexual dysfunctions associated with thiazide-class diuretics, β-blockers, and centrally acting sympathoplegics were addressed by half of the guidelines reviewed. There is no clarity on β-blockers and thiazide-class diuretics because one-third of the guidelines are vague about individual β-blockers and diuretics, and there is no statement on third-generation β-blockers and thiazide-like diuretics that can improve erectile function. The revised guidelines never use terms such as loss of libido, ejaculatory dysfunction, lack of orgasm, and priapism. Summary versions of guidelines are inadequate to reflect the key interpretation of the primary guidelines on SD associated with antihypertensives, even in the major guidelines that were updated recently. Therapeutic issues such as exploring SD in clinical history, assessing SD prior to and during treatment with antihypertensives, substituting the offending agents with alternatives that possess a better safety profile, intervening with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, and avoiding the concomitant use of nitrovasodilators are superficially addressed by most guidelines, with the exception of 2013 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology and Seventh Joint National Committee recommendations. CONCLUSION: Future guideline revisions, including both full and summary reports, should provide a balanced perspective on antihypertensive-related SD issues to improve the impact of hypertension treatment guidelines on patient care and quality of life.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.281 · 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