MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766585128 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.09.018

Aromatase Inhibitors Are Associated with Low Sexual Desire Causing Distress and Fecal Incontinence in Women: An Observational Study

2017· article· en· W2766585128 on OpenAlexaff
Penelope J. Robinson, Robin J. Bell, Marie K. Christakis, Stephanie R. Ivezic, Susan R. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersBupa Health Foundation
KeywordsHypoactive sexual desire disorderMedicineSexual functionSexual dysfunctionPelvic floorUrinary incontinenceSexual desireGynecologyDistressObservational studyBreast cancerObstetricsFecal incontinenceInternal medicineHuman sexualityCancerUrologyClinical psychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known of the impact of aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy on sexual and pelvic floor function. AIM: To document the prevalence of, and factors associated with, low desire, sexually related personal distress, hypoactive sexual desire dysfunction (HSDD), and pelvic floor dysfunction in women 10 years after breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational, community-based cohort study of Australian women with invasive breast cancer recruited within 12 months of diagnosis. 1,053 of the 1,305 who completed the initial 5 years of study follow-up agreed to be re-contacted, and 992 of these women alive 10 years after diagnosis were sent the study questionnaire. OUTCOMES: The main outcome measure was HSDD determined by a score no higher than 5.0 on the desire domain of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) plus a score of at least 11.0 on the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R). Pelvic floor disorders, including urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse, were assessed using validated questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with low desire, personal distress, and HSDD. RESULTS: 625 completed questionnaires were returned. The respondents' median age was 65.1 years (range = 36.4-95.5). Current AI use was reported by 10% and tamoxifen use was reported by 3.4%. 521 of the 608 women (85.7%; 95% CI = 82.9-88.5) who competed the FSFI desire domain had low sexual desire, and 246 of the 563 women (43.7%; 95% CI = 39.6-47.8%) who completed the FSDS-R had sexually related personal distress. 221 of the 559 women (39.5%; 95% CI = 35.5-43.6%) who completed the 2 questionnaires had HSDD. Current AI users were more likely to have HSDD than non-users (55.2% [95% CI = 42.2-68.1] vs 37.8% [95% CI = 33.5-42.0]; P = .01). HSDD was more prevalent in sexually active, current AI users (66.7%; 95% CI = 49.4-83.9) vs current non-users (43.6%; 95% CI = 37.0-50.2; P = .02). In a logistic regression model, HSDD was significantly associated with current AI use and inversely associated with age. Fecal incontinence was more prevalent in AI users than in current non-users (29.8% [95% CI = 17.8-41.8] vs 16.4% [95% CI = 13.2-19.6], respectively; P = .01). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: It is important to address women's sexual health even many years after their breast cancer diagnosis. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Strengths include a representative sample, use of validated questionnaires, and few missing data. Limitations include sexual activity being a 4-week recall. CONCLUSIONS: AI use is associated with HSDD and fecal incontinence in women who are 10 years after breast cancer diagnosis. Robinson PJ, Bell RJ, Christakis MK, et al. Aromatase Inhibitors Are Associated With Low Sexual Desire Causing Distress and Fecal Incontinence in Women: An Observational Study. J Sex Med 2017;14:1566-1574.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207