Male Sexual Dysfunction and Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: No consensus has been reached on sexual dysfunction in men with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Our study aimed to derive a more precise estimation of the sexual function and its clinical correlations in men with AS. METHODS: A metaanalysis was performed and the related literature were searched in PubMed, Elsevier Science Direct, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and in reference lists of articles and systematic reviews. Score of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) was used as the outcome measurement, and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, including 535 men with AS and 430 male controls. Each domain of the IIEF score (erectile function: SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.68 - -0.37; orgasmic function: -0.72, -1.03 - -0.42; sexual drive: -0.40, -0.62 - -0.18; intercourse satisfaction: -0.86, -1.15 - -0.56; and overall satisfaction: -0.61, -0.91 - -0.32) were lower in men with AS than in controls. In the subgroup analysis, the results did not change except for the sexual drive in the Asians group (-0.15, -0.42-0.13). At metaregression, no study characteristics were significantly associated with effect size of the IIEF score. CONCLUSION: Sexual function is impaired in male patients with AS and further studies are necessary to better understand risk factors for sexual dysfunction in this population.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".