Standards for Clinical Trials in Male and Female Sexual Dysfunction: II. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
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
The second article in this series, Standards for Clinical Trials in Male and Female Sexual Dysfunction, focuses on measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Together with the design of appropriate phase I to phase IV clinical trials, the development, validation, choice, and implementation of valid PRO measurements-the focus of the present article-form the foundation of research on treatments for male and female sexual dysfunctions. PRO measurements are assessments of any aspect of a patient's health status that come directly from the patient (ie, without the interpretation of the patient's responses by a physician or anyone else). PROs are essential for assessing male and female sexual dysfunction and treatment response, including symptom frequency and severity, personal distress, satisfaction, and other measurements of sexual and general health-related quality of life. Although there are some relatively objective measurements of sexual dysfunction (ie, intravaginal ejaculatory latency time, frequency of sexual activity, etc), these measurements do not comprehensively assess the occurrence and extent of sexual dysfunction or treatment on the patient's symptoms, functioning, and well-being. Data generated by a PRO instrument can provide evidence of a treatment benefit from the patient's perspective.
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 | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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