MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559011198 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.09.021

Standards for Clinical Trials in Male and Female Sexual Dysfunction: I. Phase I to Phase IV Clinical Trial Design

2016· article· en· W2559011198 on OpenAlexaff
William A. Fisher, Ilan Gruenwald, Emmanuele A. Jannini, Ahinoam Lev‐Sagie, Lior Löwenstein, Robert E. Pyke, Yacov Reisman, Dennis A. Revicki, Eusebio Rubio‐Aurioles

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialPhase (matter)MedicineGynecologyPsychologyInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.580
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.701
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5800.701
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0220.012
Open science0.0100.010
Research integrity0.0210.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.532
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.047 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207