Androgen Deprivation Alters Attention to Sexually Provocative Visual Stimuli in Elderly Men
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Testosterone is known to regulate male sexual interest, but the exact way that androgens influence men's sexual cognition remains unclear. AIM: To investigate the influence of androgen deprivation (AD) on visual responses to sexually suggestive stimuli in men treated for prostate cancer with AD therapy. METHODS: Patients with AD-treated prostate cancer, patients with prostate cancer not on AD therapy, and age-matched healthy control participants were exposed to images of male and female runway models fully or minimally clothed. Eye tracking was used to compare looking behavior among groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of fixations on fully clothed vs minimally clothed models and proportion of fixations on target areas of interest (ie, legs, chest, pelvis, and face) of fully clothed and minimally clothed models were analyzed and compared among groups. RESULTS: Although men not on AD exhibited a larger proportion of fixations on the minimally clothed compared with the fully clothed images, there was no difference between the 2 image types for men on AD. This was true regardless of whether the images depicted male or female models. Groups did not differ in their fixations to target areas of interest. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that testosterone can influence men's visual attention to sexual stimuli; specifically, AD can attenuate the time spent fixated on sexualized targets. Palmer-Hague JL, Tsang V, Skead C, et al. Androgen Deprivation Alters Attention to Sexually Provocative Visual Stimuli in Elderly Men. Sex Med 2017;5:e245-e254.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it