Stroke and sexual functioning: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke has multiple impacts on patients' sexual functioning, be it directly caused by the neurological lesion (s) or indirectly triggered via other psychophysiological processes. Despite a growing number of publications, sexuality is still rarely addressed in the stroke literature - yet, patients have indicated their need for sexual rehabilitation services. OBJECTIVE: To provide a literature review on post-stroke sexual functioning as well as available rehabilitation programs targeting patients' sexuality. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed using the following key words and their combination: "stroke", "sexuality", "stroke characteristics", "hemisphere", "sexual", and "sexual dysfunction". RESULTS: Existing data suggests the existence of significant associations between stroke and male and female sexual dysfunction (SD) as well as desire/libido and sexual satisfaction. The exact contribution of patients' neurological profile (stroke laterality, location, and severity) on their SD remains inconclusive with research providing mixed findings. Psychological factors are shown to play a significant part in the development of patients' SDs. A few intervention programs have been developed to specifically guide health professionals when addressing patients' needs regarding their sexual recovery. CONCLUSION: Sexual rehabilitation needs to be an integrative part of stroke patients' rehabilitation process, preferably at the interdisciplinary level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".