MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557475525 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.10.009

Diagnosis and Treatment of Testosterone Deficiency: Recommendations from the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015)

2016· review· en· W2557475525 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAV&R (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtiologyTestosterone (patch)Sexual medicineDiseaseGynecologyMEDLINEProstate cancerFamily medicinePediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Testosterone deficiency (TD), also known as hypogonadism, is a condition affecting a substantial proportion of men as they age. The diagnosis and management of TD can be challenging and clinicians should be aware of the current literature on this condition. AIM: To review the available literature concerning the diagnosis and management of TD and to provide clinically relevant recommendations from the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM) meeting. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed database for English-language original and review articles published or e-published up to January 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of evidence (LoEs) and grades of recommendations are provided based on a thorough analysis of the literature and committee consensus. RESULTS: Recommendations were given for 12 categories of TD: definition, clinical diagnosis, routine measurement, screening questionnaires, laboratory diagnosis, threshold levels for the biochemical diagnosis of TD, prostate cancer, cardiovascular disease, fertility, testosterone (T) formulations, alternatives to T therapy, and adverse events and monitoring. A total of 42 recommendations were made: of these, 16 were unchanged from the Third ICSM and 26 new recommendations were made during this Fourth ICSM. Most of these recommendations were supported by LoEs 2 and 3. Several key new recommendations include the following: (i) the clinical manifestations of TD occur as a result of decreased serum androgen concentrations or activity, regardless of whether there is an identified underlying etiology [LoE = 1, Grade = A]; (ii) symptomatic men with total T levels lower than 12 nmol/L or 350 ng/dL should be treated with T therapy [LoE = 1, Grade = C]; (iii) a trial of T therapy in symptomatic men with total T levels higher than 12 nmol/L or 350 ng/dL can be considered based on clinical presentation [LoE = 3, Grade = C]; (iv) there is no compelling evidence that T treatment increases the risk of developing prostate cancer or that its use is associated with prostate cancer progression [LoE = 1, Grade = C]; and (v) the weight of evidence indicates that T therapy is not associated with increased cardiovascular risk [LoE = 2, Grade = B]. CONCLUSION: TD is an important condition that can profoundly affect the sexual health of men. We provide guidance regarding its diagnosis and management. Men with TD who receive treatment often experience resolution or improvement in their sexual symptoms and non-sexual health benefits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it