Maintaining intimacy for prostate cancer patients on androgen deprivation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) causes erectile dysfunction and increases patients' emotionality while diminishing their sexual interest. ADT has been linked to erosion of spousal bonds; however, this is not an invariant outcome. Understanding the factors that lead to these various outcomes may help couples deal with ADT. RECENT FINDINGS: A subset of couples report that they became closer as a result of the patients going on ADT. Recent data suggest that what helps couples most is preemptive awareness of ADT's side-effects and congruence in how patients and their partners understand and accept the psychosexual impact of ADT. Sex therapy for prostate cancer patients divides along gendered lines, with distinctly 'male' (recovery of erections) and 'female' (promoting sexual practices that are not erection dependent) approaches. Unfortunately, neither is very effective for couples when the patient is on ADT. Options beyond the standard gendered framework, such as use of an external penile prosthesis, may be worth offering to ADT patients trying to find a 'new normal' that is sexually rewarding for them. SUMMARY: Intimacy is sharing something with someone that one shares with no one else. Exploring novel sexual practices can help couples stay intimate, even when the patient is on ADT.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".