Epidemiologic Profile of Erectile Dysfunction in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: The Latin American Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED), as well as associated demographic and clinical features, in men with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), by means of a systematic, standardized evaluation. METHODS: We performed a transversal study in 8 tertiary care centers in Latin America. We included male patients ≥ 16 years who fulfilled ≥ 4 American College of Rheumatology criteria for SLE and had regular sexual activity, and evaluated them with the International Index of Erectile Function-5 questionnaire. Relevant demographic, clinical, and serological characteristics were recorded. We included 2 control groups: the first was made up of healthy men and the second of men with autoimmune diseases other than SLE (non-SLE group). RESULTS: We included 590 subjects (174 SLE, 55 non-SLE, and 361 healthy controls). The prevalence of ED in the SLE group was 69%. Mean age in that group was 36.3 ± 1.03 years. Among SLE patients with and without ED, these factors were significantly different: the presence of persistent lymphopenia (p = 0.006), prednisone dose (9.3 ± 1.2 vs 5.3 ± 1.3 mg, p = 0.026), and the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics damage score (1.25 ± 0.14 vs 0.8 ± 0.16 points, p = 0.042). Independent risk factors for ED in patients with SLE were persistent lymphopenia (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.37-5.70, p = 0.001) and corticosteroid use in the previous year (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.37-3.37, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Regardless of comorbidities, treatment (excluding steroids), and type of disease activity, patients with SLE have a high prevalence of ED, especially considering that most patients are young. Recent corticosteroid use and persistent lymphopenia, which could be related to endothelial dysfunction, are risk factors for this complication in men with SLE.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".