Ethical and Sociocultural Aspects of Sexual Function and Dysfunction in Both Sexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to highlight the salient sociocultural factors contributing to sexual health and dysfunction and to offer recommendations for culturally sensitive clinical management and research as well for an ethically sound sexual health care, counseling and medical decision-making. BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the impact of sociocultural factors on male and female sexual function as well as on ethical principles to follow when clinical care falls outside of traditional realms of medically indicated interventions. METHODS: This study reviewed the current literature on sociocultural and ethical considerations with regard to male and female sexual dysfunction as well as cultural and cosmetic female and male genital modification procedures. RESULTS: It is recommended that clinicians evaluate their patients and their partners in the context of culture and assess distressing sexual symptoms regardless of whether they are a recognized dysfunction. Both clinicians and researchers should develop culturally sensitive assessment skills and instruments. There are a number of practices with complex ethical issues (eg, female genital cutting, female and male cosmetic genital surgery). Future International Committee of Sexual Medicine meetings should seek to develop guidelines and associated recommendations for a separate, broader chapter on ethics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".