MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982059080 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.09.001

A Systematic Review of Sexual Satisfaction in Prostate Cancer Patients

2019· review· en· W2982059080 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersProstate Cancer Canada
KeywordsSexual functionPsychological interventionClinical psychologyPsychosocialSexual desireMedicineScopusPremature ejaculationPsychologySexual medicineMEDLINEGynecologyHuman sexualityPsychotherapistPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it