Influence of treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy with intravaginal prasterone on the male partner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to analyze the opinion of the male partner of women treated for vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) with intravaginal 0.50% DHEA (prasterone), thus providing information on both members of the couple. METHODS: On a voluntary basis, in a prospective, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled phase-III clinical trial, the male partner filled a questionnaire at baseline and at 12 weeks stating his observations related to his penis and intercourse before and after VVA treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-six men having a partner treated with intravaginal DHEA and 34 others having a partner treated with placebo answered the questionnaires. Concerning the feeling of vaginal dryness of their female partner, the severity score following DHEA treatment improved by 81% (0.76 units) over placebo (p = 0.0347). Thirty-six percent of men having a partner treated with DHEA did not feel the vaginal dryness of the partner at the end of treatment compared to 7.8% in the placebo group. When analyzing the situation at 12 weeks compared to baseline, an improved score of 1.09 units was the difference found for the DHEA group compared to 0.76 for the placebo group (p = 0.05 vs. placebo). In the DHEA group, 38% of men scored very improved compared to 18% in the placebo group. No adverse event has been reported. CONCLUSION: The male partner had a very positive evaluation of the treatment received by his female partner.
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) | 0.003 | 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".