MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560907291 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.11.001

Conceptualization and Assessment of Hypersexual Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2016· review· en· W2560907291 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Montgomery-Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationPsychologySexual addictionClinical psychologyAddictionBehavioral addictionDSM-5PsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Despite the rejection of hypersexual disorder (HD) as a new diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), clinical and research interest in HD continues. AIM: To systematically review the existing scientific literature on the conceptualization and assessment of HD and out-of-control sexual behavior. METHODS: Studies were identified from PsychInfo, PubMed, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Scholar's Portal using an exhaustive list of key terms. Of 299 total articles identified and screened, 252 were excluded, and 47 are included in this review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To review two categories of articles: HD conceptualization and HD psychometric assessment. RESULTS: First, results of the review of theoretical conceptualizations of HD reflected a large proportion of the peer-reviewed literature devoted to discussing conceptualizations of HD without reaching consensus. Second, results of the review of HD psychometric assessments were analyzed using Hunsley and Mash's (2008) criteria to evaluate psychometric adequacy of evidence-based assessment measurements. The six most researched measurements of HD were evaluated, including the Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory, the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory, the Sexual Compulsivity Scale, the Sexual Addiction Screening Test, the Sexual Addiction Screening Test-Revised, and the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Inventory. Psychometric properties of the scales are reviewed, evaluated, and discussed. CONCLUSION: The Hypersexual Disorder Screening Inventory, the measurement proposed for the clinical screening of HD by the DSM-5 workgroup, currently has the strongest psychometric support. Future research and clinical directions are discussed in light of findings after the literature review and synthesis. Montgomery-Graham S. Conceptualization and Assessment of Hypersexual Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev 2017;5:146-162.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0190.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.365 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations124
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual Medicine ReviewsSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207