Maintaining intimacy for prostate cancer patients on androgen deprivation therapy
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it