Gender-Specific Differences in Pelvic Organ Function After Proctectomy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Significant concern exists regarding the effect of proctectomy on sexual function in patients with IBD. Little is known about gender-specific differences. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine sexual function and quality of life in men and women with IBD before and after proctectomy. DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a colorectal surgery center. PATIENTS: The patients included in this study have IBD and underwent proctectomy or proctocolectomy. INTERVENTION: The treatment provided was proctectomy or proctocolectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Validated questionnaires were used to assess sexual function, quality of life, bowel habits, and urinary symptoms, and were completed before and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Sixty-six participants (41 men and 25 women) were evaluated at baseline and 6 months after proctocolectomy or completion proctectomy. A total of 48 IPAAs (31 men and 17 women) and 18 end ileostomies (10 men and 8 women) were created. Men reported improved scores on the International Index of Erectile Function (P = .003), a modified Sexual Function Questionnaire (P = .001), Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life (P < .001), and SF-36 (Mental Component Summary, P = .003; Physical Component Summary, P = .001) after surgery. Women had improvement in the desire subscale of the Female Sexual Function Index (P = .03), Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life scores (P = .04), and SF-36 (Mental Component Summary, P = .02; Physical Component Summary, P = .02). There was no gender difference in the magnitude of change in scores before and after surgery for any of the measures. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and sexually inactivity in 50% of cohort may have had an impact on our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Both men and women reported improvements in general and IBD-specific quality of life after surgery, but only men demonstrated several areas of improved sexual function. Women reported improved sexual desire but no other sexual function improvement. The postsurgical gender difference in sexual function, despite similar improvements in quality of life, may be accounted for by unexamined aspects of female sexual function.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".