Finasteride for androgenetic alopecia is not associated with sexual dysfunction: a survey‐based, single‐centre, controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The occurrence of sexual dysfunction side-effects associated with finasteride use in men with androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is thought to be less prevalent than is publicized. There is a need to investigate sexual dysfunction among finasteride users with population-based controls. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the presence of sexual dysfunction in men using finasteride or not using finasteride. METHOD: Adult men visiting a dermatologist's office for any reason were asked to complete a survey including a modified version of the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX) to assess the presence of sexual dysfunction with and without finasteride use. RESULTS: Data from 762 men aged 18-82 were collected: 663 finasteride users and 99 non-finasteride users. There were no significant differences between finasteride users and non-user controls in reporting sexual dysfunction using the ASEX. Regression analysis indicated that self-reporting libido loss and reduced sexual performance, not finasteride use, predict a higher ASEX score. CONCLUSION: The use of finasteride does not result in sexual dysfunction in men with AGA. These data are consistent with other large survey-based controlled studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".