The My-T study: Patient satisfaction and preference comparing topical and nasal testosterone therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: , testosterone nasal gel (TNG) is an intranasal testosterone therapy (TTh) used to restore testosterone levels and improve symptoms of hypogonadism. Treatment requires application two (bid) or three (tid) times daily. The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) and a Patient Preference and Use (PPU) Questionnaire were used to obtain patient feedback on the use of TNG and compare to experience with topical TTh. METHODS: The study enrolled 24 TTh-naive (TThN) and 93 TTh-experienced (TThE) hypogonadal men. Treatment lasted up to 120 days, with titration at day 90 to determine the most appropriate dose for restoration of testosterone levels (11 mg bid or tid). Patient satisfaction and symptom changes were measured at days 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120. The PPU Questionnaire was performed at study entry and study completion. RESULTS: Symptoms improved from baseline (30.6) to day 90 (35.1) (p<0.0001; +15%), consistent with testosterone replacement. TNG increased scores for effectiveness (+20%), convenience (+30%), and global satisfaction (+3%) as compared to their previous topical TTh. TThE patients reported ease of use, convenience, efficacy/effectiveness, and travel friendliness as "likes" of TNG therapy. Overall, 67.2% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred TNG over topical TTh and 59% sought a prescription to continue treatment with TNG. CONCLUSIONS: Patients switching from topical TTh to TNG reported significant improvements in symptoms and patient satisfaction compared to their previous topical TTh. Patients also reported a significant improvement in convenience with TNG despite two to three times daily application. Preference, satisfaction, and convenience may translate to better treatment compliance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".