The good, bad, and the ugly of regenerative therapies for erectile dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition which reduces quality of life of both patients and their partners, and is a significant health care expense every year. Although phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors are the current first-line treatment for men with ED, they are limited by their on-demand dosing, intolerance, and variable efficacy in complex patient populations such as men with multiple medical comorbidities or ED after pelvic surgery. Regenerative medicine has been introduced and investigated in andrology as an encouraging strategy to restore diseased erectile tissue structure and function. Novel regenerative therapies for ED are controversial but are perceived to offer a durable and safe tissue restorative approach to act as a long-term solution to this cumbersome disease process. Here, we review platelet-rich plasma, amniotic fluid membranes, low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and stem cell therapy as regenerative strategies to treat ED. Most of these approaches have preclinical and occasionally clinical data to support their ongoing investigation; however, none of these treatments are currently supported for use in ED patients outside of clinical trials.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".