Chronic scrotal pain may lead to reduced sexual function and interest, while sexual activity may worsen chronic scrotal pain: “double jeopardy”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: While it is recognized that chronic pain may adversely impact sexual function and activity in men and we also recognize that sexual activity may worsen the pain for men with chronic scrotal pain (CSP), the effect on sexual functioning and conversely the impact of sex on CSP has not previously been documented. Methods: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. Results: From Feb 2014 to Sep 2015, a total of 128 men presenting for assessment of CSP completed all or parts of a standardized questionnaire. Overall 60% (69/116) of the men felt that the CSP had kept them either a “lot” or “some” of the time from sexual activity and 64% (27/43) had evidence of decreased erectile performance. Those with more severe pain (analog pain scores 7–10/10) had more significant sexual dysfunction than those with less severe pain, with 54% (45/83) vs. 0% (0/33, P<0.01: Fisher’s exact test) noting that the pain kept them from sexual activity “a lot” and 70% (23/33) vs. 40% (4/10, P<0.01) noting sexual dysfunction. Diminished libido was also common in the men [43% (55/128)] as were the symptoms of testosterone deficiency [76% (97/128)]. Conversely, sexual activity often exacerbated the pain, with 37% (47/128) finding that ejaculation aggravated their pain and another 38% (48/128) patients found sexual activity aggravated their pain. Conclusions: Men with severe CSP have significantly reduced sexual function and interest compared to men with moderate or minor levels of pain. The majority of men with CSP who were sexually active were faced with worsening pain with sex and ejaculation. Clinicians should be aware of the twin risks of sexual dysfunction occurring in men with CSP and sexual activity worsening the severity of the CSP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".