Gay and Bisexual Men Alternate Ways of Obtaining Erectile Dysfunction Medication and Their Reasons for Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recreational use of erectile dysfunction medication (EDM) among gay and bisexual men (GBM) has been associated with HIV risk behaviours and transmission; especially during intensive sex partying. We investigated use of EDM among GBM. Flux is a cohort study of drug use among Australian GBM. A total of 2250 GBM had completed the baseline survey by March 2015. One third (34%) of participants had used EDM in the previous six months. While they most commonly obtained EDM through a doctor (41%), the majority did so by other means: 26% obtained EDM online, and many obtained them through casual (21%) or regular (13%) sexual partners. Men commonly used EDM to: stay erect longer (44%), make it easier to become erect (40%), and to counter the effects of other drugs (32%). Only 28% cited difficulties keeping an erection and 13% indicated they needed EDM to take the insertive role during intercourse. 54% of men using EDM also engaged in group sex and 43% used crystal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".