Summary of the Recommendations on Sexual Dysfunctions in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are few published guidelines for the management of sexual dysfunctions in men and women, despite the prevalence and lack of attention to these problems. Disorders of sexual function in men include erectile dysfunction, orgasm/ejaculation disorders, priapism, and Peyronie's disease. AIM: To provide evidence-based and expert-opinion consensus guidelines for the clinical management of men's sexual dysfunctions. METHODS: An International Consultation in collaboration with major urological and sexual medicine societies assembled over 200 multidisciplinary experts from 60 countries into 17 consultation committees. Committee members established the scope and objectives for each chapter. Following intensive review of available data and publications, committees developed evidence-based guidelines in each area. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: New algorithms and guidelines for assessment and treatment of men's sexual dysfunction were developed. The Oxford system of evidence-based review was systematically applied. Expert opinion was based on systematic grading of the medical literature, in addition to cultural and ethical considerations. RESULTS: Recommendations and guidelines for men's sexual dysfunction are presented. These guidelines were developed as evidence-based, patient-centered, and multidisciplinary in focus. For the clinical assessment and diagnosis of ED, a basic evaluation was recommended for all patients, with optional and specialized testing reserved for special cases. A new treatment algorithm is proposed. This algorithm provides a clinically relevant guideline for managing ED in the large majority of men. New treatment guidelines and algorithms are provided for men's orgasm and ejaculation disorders, including premature ejaculation, retrograde and delayed ejaculation. Finally, expert opinion-based guidelines for the clinical management of priapism and Peyronie's disease are provided. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to validate and extend these guidelines. Nonetheless, this summary encompasses the recommendations concerning men's sexual dysfunctions presented at the 2nd International Consultation on Sexual Medicine in Paris, France, June 28-July 1, 2003.
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 | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.013 |
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".