Cardiovascular Responses to Sexual Activity in Able-Bodied Individuals and Those Living with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexuality is an integral part of the human experience and persists in health and disability. The cardiovascular system is crucial to sexual function and can be affected profoundly by spinal cord injury (SCI). The effects of sexual activity on the cardiovascular system in SCI have not been summarized and compared with sexual activity in able-bodied individuals. A keyword search of Embase, PubMed, and Medline was conducted. From 471 retrieved studies for able-bodied individuals, 11 were included that met the strict criteria of medically uncomplicated participants. In the SCI literature, 117 studies were screened, with 18 meeting criteria. In able-bodied persons, sexual activity resulted in modest increases in systolic blood pressure peaking at orgasm (males of 163 mm Hg and females of 142 mm Hg) and returning to baseline shortly afterward. In persons with SCI, results varied from minimal changes to significant elevations in systolic blood pressure because of episodes of autonomic dysreflexia, especially in those with high thoracic and cervical lesions. Peak systolic blood pressure in these individuals was measured to be as high as 325 mm Hg. In the SCI population, more intense stimuli (including penile vibrostimulation and electroejaculation) tended to result in a greater increase in systolic blood pressure compared with self-stimulation. Studies that used continuous versus intermittent monitoring were more likely to report greater changes in systolic blood pressure. In able-bodied persons, sexual activity results in modest increases in blood pressure. In those with SCI, intense stimulation and higher injury levels result in a higher likelihood of autonomic dysreflexia and elevated blood pressure. Because of rapid changes in blood pressure, continuous monitoring is more advantageous than intermittent measurement, because the latter may miss peak values.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".