Psychological and sexual effects of circumcision in adult males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to investigate the psychological and sexual effects of circumcision in adult men, and analyze these changes following circumcision. METHODS: We included 37 adults who applied to our clinic for circumcision and who did not have any psychiatric or urologic disorders and age-matched 30 controls in our study. Body Cathexis Scale (BCS), Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), and Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool (PEDT) were applied to the study group twice, once before and once three months after circumcision, and only once in the control group. Also, intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT) was noted and premature ejaculation (PE) evaluation was done. Intra- and intergroup comparisons were performed. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with regard to demographic data. Comparison of preoperative BCS and LSAS scores with the scores of the control group showed significant differences (p=0.003, p<0.001, and p<0.001, respectively). However, postoperative scores were similar to the scores obtained in the control group (p=0.768, p>0.05, and p>0.05, respectively). Scores of all scales showed significant improvements postoperatively. Also, PEDT scores and IELT changes before and after circumcision were significant in the study group, but not when compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that social anxiety and anxiety levels decreased after circumcision in adult Turkish men, and their body gratification increased. We found that not being circumcised might negatively affect individuals in adulthood when it comes to body image and sexual satisfaction, however, both improve after circumcision.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".