A Systematic Review of Sexual Satisfaction in Prostate Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PCa) treatment has a significant negative impact on sexual function. Because research to this date has mostly focused on the impact of PCa on erectile function, very little is known about the impact of PCa on other relevant sexual outcomes, such as sexual satisfaction. AIM: To conduct a literature review of studies that have examined sexual satisfaction in men diagnosed with and treated for PCa. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using Scopus and PubMed databases to identify studies that had assessed sexual satisfaction in men with PCa. The main characteristics of each study and results regarding the impact of PCa on sexual satisfaction were extracted and examined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was studies that assessed general sexual satisfaction in men with PCa. RESULTS: Thirty-eight articles were found regarding sexual satisfaction in PCa. Most studies did not focus on sexual satisfaction specifically, and methodologic limitations produced very mixed results. Overall, PCa treatments had a low to moderate impact on sexual satisfaction, and psychosocial interventions were more successful at improving sexual satisfaction than medical interventions. Sexual satisfaction was correlated to a large number of sexual, relational, psychological, and medical variables. CONCLUSION: This literature review shows very mixed results about the sexual satisfaction in men with PCa. Differences in research designs, methodologic limitations, and studies conducted atheoretically limit our understanding of the mechanisms that impact sexual satisfaction in men with PCa. We propose an alternative way of conducting research on sexual satisfaction by using solid theoretical models of sexual satisfaction. Santos-Iglesias P, Rana M, Walker L. A Systematic Review of Sexual Satisfaction in Prostate Cancer Patients. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:450-465.
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 | 0.010 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".