Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction in people with cancer is a significant problem. The present clinical practice guideline makes recommendations to improve sexual function in people with cancer. METHODS: This guideline was undertaken by the Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People with Cancer Expert Panel, a group organized by the Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc). Consistent with the pebc standardized approach, a systematic search was conducted for existing guidelines, and the literature in medline and embase for the years 2003-2015 was systematically searched for both systematic reviews and primary literature. Evidence found for men and for women was evaluated separately, and no restrictions were placed on cancer type or study design. Content and methodology experts performed an internal review of the resulting draft recommendations, which was followed by an external review by targeted experts and intended users. RESULTS: The search identified 4 existing guidelines, 13 systematic reviews, and 103 studies with relevance to the topic. The present guideline provides one overarching recommendation concerning the discussion of sexual health and dysfunction, which is aimed at all people with cancer. Eleven additional recommendations made separately for men and women deal with issues such as sexual response, body image, intimacy and relationships, overall sexual functioning and satisfaction, and vasomotor and genital symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge this clinical practice guideline is the first to comprehensively evaluate interventions for the improvement of sexual problems in people with cancer. The guideline will be a valuable resource to support practitioners and clinics in addressing sexuality in cancer survivors.
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 | 0.013 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".