Usage and perceptions of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors among the male partners of infertile couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and the usage of phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors for ED treatment in infertile couples. METHODS: A total of 260 male partners in couples reporting infertility lasting at least 1 year were included in this study. In addition to an evaluation of infertility, all participants completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-5 questionnaire to evaluate their sexual function. The participants were asked about their use of PDE5 inhibitors while trying to conceive during their partner's ovulatory period and about their concerns regarding the risks of PDE5 inhibitor use to any eventual pregnancy and/or the fetus. RESULTS: Based on the IIEF-5 questionnaire, 41.5% of the participants (108/260) were classified as having mild ED (an IIEF-5 score of 17-21), while 10.4% of the participants (27/260) had greater than mild ED (an IIEF-5 score of 16 or less). The majority (74.2%, 193/260) of male partners of infertile couples had a negative perception of the safety of using a PDE5 inhibitor while trying to conceive. Only 11.1% of men (15/135) with ED in infertile couples had used a PDE5 inhibitor when attempting conception. CONCLUSION: ED was found to be common in the male partners of infertile couples, but the use of PDE5 inhibitors among these men was found to be very low. The majority of male partners were concerned about the risks of using PDE5 inhibitors when attempting to conceive. Appropriate counseling about this topic and treatment when necessary would likely be beneficial to infertile couples in which the male partner has ED.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".