MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332811474 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.12.004

Multiple Orgasms in Men—What We Know So Far

2016· review· en· W2332811474 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is much popular discussion on strategies to facilitate multiple orgasms in men (ie, 100,000+ hits in Google), yet the topic has not received an objective comprehensive review in the literature. AIM: To review the literature on male multiple orgasms. METHODS: We searched the literature for publications on "male multiple orgasms" and factors influencing male multiple orgasms in Google, PubMed, and PsychINFO. This yielded 15 relevant publications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comprehensive overview on the topic of male multiple orgasms and factors that influence the propensity of men to experience multiple orgasms. RESULTS: Few men are multiorgasmic: <10% for those in their 20s, and <7% after the age of 30. The literature suggests 2 types of male multiple orgasms: "sporadic" multiorgasms, with interorgasmic intervals of several minutes, and "condensed" multiorgasms, with bursts of 2-4 orgasms within a few seconds to 2 minutes. Multiple orgasms appear physiologically similar to the single orgasm in mono-orgasmic men. However, in a single case study, a multiorgasmic man did not experience with his first orgasm the prolactin surge that usually occurs with orgasm in mono-orgasmic men. Various factors may facilitate multiple orgasms: (1) practicing to have an orgasm without ejaculation; (2) using psychostimulant drugs; (3) having multiple and/or novel sexual partners; or (4) using sex toys to enhance tactile stimulation. However, confirmatory physiological data on any of these factors are few. In some cases, the ability to experience multiple orgasms may increase after medical procedures that reduce ejaculation (eg, prostatectomy or castration), but what factor(s) influence this phenomenon is poorly investigated. CONCLUSION: Despite popular interest, the topic of male multiple orgasms has received surprisingly little scientific assessment. The role of ejaculation and physiological change during the refractory period in inhibiting multiple orgasms has barely been investigated.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it