The Use of Leuprolide Acetate in the Management of High-Risk Sex Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates whether leuprolide acetate (Lupron) adds to the efficacy of traditional sex offender treatment. A group of sex offenders receiving both Lupron and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; n = 25) were compared with a group of sex offenders receiving only CBT ( n = 22). Treated subjects were compared with norms available with reference to the Static-99R, as well as compared with a sample of untreated, nonsexual violent offenders ( n = 81), to provide baseline data regarding risk of violent recidivism. Results indicated that subjects receiving Lupron were at significantly higher risk of recidivism and significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a paraphilia than subjects receiving only CBT, a priori. Both treated groups of sexual offenders recidivated at substantially lower rates than predicted by the Static-99R. Currently, this study represents the only, long-term outcome study on Lupron administration using officially recorded recidivism as the primary dependent measure.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".