Sexual Rehabilitation After Treatment For Prostate Cancer—Part 2: Recommendations From the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015)
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
INTRODUCTION: Sexual dysfunction is common in patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. AIM: To provide the International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM) 2015 recommendations concerning management strategies for post-RP erectile function impairment and to analyze post-RP sexual dysfunction other than erectile dysfunction. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Google and PubMed database for English-language original and review articles published up to August 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of evidence (LEs) and grades of recommendations (GRs) are provided based on a thorough analysis of the literature and committee consensus. RESULTS: Nine recommendations are provided by the ICSM 2015 committee on sexual rehabilitation after RP. Recommendation 6 states that the recovery of postoperative erectile function can take several years (LE = 2, GR = C). Recommendation 7 states there are conflicting data as to whether penile rehabilitation with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors improves recovery of spontaneous erections (LE = 1, GR = A). Recommendation 8 states that the data are inadequate to support any specific regimen as optimal for penile rehabilitation (LE = 3, GR = C). Recommendation 9 states that men undergoing RP (any technique) are at risk of sexual changes other than erectile dysfunction, including decreased libido, changes in orgasm, anejaculation, Peyronie-like disease, and changes in penile size (LE = 2, GR = B). CONCLUSION: This article discusses Recommendations 6 to 9 of the ICSM 2015 committee on sexual rehabilitation after RP. Salonia A, Adaikan G, Buvat J, et al. Sexual Rehabilitation After Treatment For Prostate Cancer-Part 2: Recommendations From the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015). J Sex Med 2017;14:297-315.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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