AB129. The effect of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) on erectile function: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) was observed in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). However, it is still unknown whether CP/CPPS is a risk factor of ED. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between CP/CPPS and ED. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were searched up to November 2014 to identify literatures that reported the association between CP/CPPS and ED. Case-control, cohort or cross-sectional studies were included. Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale was used in assessing qualities of included case-control and cohort studies and an eleven item quality assessment table was used in cross-sectional studies. This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Odds ratio of ED and mean difference of 5-item International Index of Erectile Function scores were pooled across studies and analyzed using random effect model. RESULTS: A total of 3 cross-sectional studies, 2 case-control studies and 4 retrospective studies with 31,956 participants were included to calculate pooled OR of ED, and 2 studies for pooled mean difference of IIEF-5 score. A strong correlation between CP/CPPS and ED (pooled OR: 3.02, 95% CI: 2.18-4.17, P<0.01) was found, with significant heterogeneity across studies (I(2)=65%, P<0.01). Also a significant decrease of IIFE-5 score in CP/CPPS group (pooled MD: –4.54, 95% CI: –5.11-–3.98, P<0.01) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CP/CPPS have a more increased risk of suffering from ED, but the mechanisms were unclear. Evidence of higher level is needed to further confirm this relationship. Physicians should pay more attention on erectile function of patients with CP/CPPS.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".