083 “Platelet Rich Plasma for Sexual Dysfunction in Canada: Who, Where and at What Cost?”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been increased interest in platelet rich plasma (PRP) as a treatment for male and female sexual dysfunction following its successful use in a number of orthopedic settings. While there is no published human data supporting its use in sexual dysfunction not related to a dermatological condition, there is speculation that PRP can improve genital sensitivity, arousal and orgasm in both men and women. At present, there are many physicians offering PRP for sexual dysfunction but no standardization with regards to indications for treatment, protocol and cost. We report on the availability and cost of PRP for female and male sexual dysfunction in Canada. Physicians offering genital PRP in Canada (population: 36.9 million) were identified using internet searches and PRP provider directories. Physician qualifications, clinic locations, and cost information were obtained from provider websites and telephone calls to identified clinics. Nineteen providers were identified. Mean cost of a single treatment was $1777 CDN (range 650-2500). All clinics recommended at least two treatments for optimal results. No information was available regarding adverse effects or contraindications to treatment. Providers were trained in family medicine (n=11), naturopathic medicine (n=2), emergency medicine (n=2), urology (n=1), internal medicine (n=1), plastic surgery (n=1) and anesthesiology (n=1). Providers were located in Ontario (n=8), Alberta (n=6), Quebec (n=2), British Columbia (n=1) and Saskatchewan (n=1). No providers were identified on the east coast of Canada. PRP was offered to both men and women (n=11), men only (n=7) and women only (n=1). No PRP provider had a university/academic affiliation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.002 |
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".