MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745308789 · doi:10.1097/mou.0000000000000440

Testosterone therapy improves well being and psychological health

2017· review· en· W2745308789 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Akerman, Jason R. Kovac, Larry I. Lipshultz

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTestosterone (patch)PsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To ascertain whether testosterone therapy (TTh) improves psychological health and a sense of overall well being in a number of clinical domains. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent work suggests small but durable and replicable improvements in the components of male health and well being. SUMMARY: Symptomatic hypogonadism is frequently associated with decreased libido and fatigue that contributes to lowered overall quality-of-life and worsening psychological health. This manuscript will review the evidence behind the generalized benefits of TTh on overall male health as well as on depression and cognitive function in particular. Influence of TTh on body composition and its relationship to cardiovascular disease are also discussed in this overall context.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in UrologySame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207