A cross-sectional study of sexual function and fertility status in adults with congenital genitourinary abnormalities in a U.S. tertiary care centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate sexual function, sexual knowledge, and fertility status in adult patients with congenital genitourinary abnormalities (CGUA). METHODS: Adult patients with CGUA who were referred to a single transitional urology clinic between 2014 and 2017 were prospectively recruited to participate in the study. Questionnaires about general demographics, bowel and bladder continence, fertility, and sexuality were gathered. Validated questionnaires, including the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) and Brief Index of Sexual Functioning for Women (BISF-W), were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 167 adults with CGUA were referred to our clinic within the defined time frame. Sixty patients (25 males, 35 females) with a mean age of 25.4 years (range 18-75) met inclusion criteria and responded to questionnaires pertaining to sexuality and fertility. Forty-five (75%) responded to the fertility questionnaire; 26 (58%) had never heard of assisted reproductive technologies, and only one had received prior fertility counselling. Fifty-eight participants (97%) responded to the sexuality questionnaire; 21 (36%) reported a history of sexual activity, with 12 (21%) being currently sexually active. Twenty (34%) wanted to learn more about sexuality and/or fertility. The SHIM response rate was 44%, and only three females (9%) completed the BISF-W in its entirety. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with CGUA desire more sexuality and fertility education, yet they are uncomfortable completing current questionnaires. Our sexuality and fertility questionnaires are too challenging for this patient population to complete despite assistance. Thus, modifications are urgently needed. Additionally, medical providers should discuss sexual and reproductive health with these patients earlier and in more detail.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".