Standards for Clinical Trials in Male and Female Sexual Dysfunction: I. Phase I to Phase IV Clinical Trial Design
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
This series of articles outlines standards for clinical trials of treatments for male and female sexual dysfunctions, with a focus on research design and patient-reported outcome assessment. These articles consist of revision, updating, and integration of articles on standards for clinical trials in male and female sexual dysfunction from the 2010 International Consultation on Sexual Medicine developed by the authors as part of the 2015 International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. We are guided in this effort by several principles. In contrast to previous versions of these guidelines, we merge discussion of standards for clinical trials in male and female sexual dysfunction in an integrated approach that emphasizes the common foundational practices that underlie clinical trials in the two settings. We present a common expected standard for clinical trial design in male and female sexual dysfunction, a common rationale for the design of phase I to IV clinical trials, and common considerations for selection of study population and study duration in male and female sexual dysfunction. We present a focused discussion of fundamental principles in patient- (and partner-) reported outcome assessment and complete this series of articles with specific discussions of selected aspects of clinical trials that are unique to male and to female sexual dysfunction. Our consideration of standards for clinical trials in male and female sexual dysfunction attempts to embody sensitivity to existing and new regulatory guidance and to address implications of the evolution of the diagnosis of sexual dysfunction that have been brought forward in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. The first article in this series focuses on phase I to phase IV clinical trial design considerations. Subsequent articles in this series focus on the measurement of patient-reported outcomes, unique aspects of clinical trial design for men, and unique aspects of clinical trial design for women.
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 | 0.071 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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