Association of Hypertension With Erectile Function in Chronic Peripheral Arterial Insufficiency Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk factors may influence the improvement or worsening of erectile dysfunction (ED). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of systemic hypertension on ED in patients with peripheral arterial disease. METHODS: The effect of hypertension on ED was assessed in 125 consecutive patients in a cross-sectional quantitative study. The ages of the patients ranged from 19 to 88 years old (mean: 59.82 ± 10.48 years). The only exclusion criterion was the amputation of one or both legs. The ankle-arm index was assessed and the international index of ED questionnaire was applied to all participants in the study. RESULTS: Of the 125 patients, 22 (17.6%) had mild (grade 1), 50 (40.0%) had moderate (grade 2) and 53 (42.4%) had severe (grade 3) ED. Hypertensive patients have more ED, with ED in hypertensive patients being associated to chronic arterial disease. However, in comparison with normotensive patients, hypertension exerts an immediate protective effect on erectile function. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although erectile function is initially protected by systemic arterial hypertension in patients with chronic arterial disease, both chronic arterial disease and ED deteriorate over the long term in hypertensive patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".