Sex After Prostate Cancer in Gay and Bisexual Men: A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among males globally, and it has one of the highest 5-year net survival rates of all cancers. Most diagnosed individuals, therefore, must live with the consequences of the disease and its treatments, including sexual side effects. Unfortunately, little is known about the sexual outcomes of PCa in individuals who identify as gay or bisexual. OBJECTIVES: To highlight the unique concerns, experiences, and needs of gay and bisexual men with PCa by reviewing the literature on sexual outcomes in this patient population. METHODS: A literature review through June 2019 was conducted, with a focus on sexual outcomes in gay and bisexual men with PCa; comparisons of sexual outcomes between heterosexual and gay and bisexual men with PCa; and the health care experiences of gay and bisexual men with PCa, specifically with regards to discussing sex with health care providers. RESULTS: Gay and bisexual men with PCa report a number of unique sexual concerns compared to their heterosexual counterparts. They face heteronormative biases and homophobia in the health care system and are frequently dissatisfied with the information they receive with regards to PCa and sexuality. CONCLUSION: There has been limited research on the experiences of gay and bisexual men with PCa; additional research to replicate and extend upon the findings of previous studies is warranted. Research on the experiences of PCa patients and survivors should be inclusive of participants of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Research results must be translated into clinical practice, so that health care providers can communicate specific and relevant information to their gay and bisexual patients. McInnis MK, Pukall, CF. Sex After Prostate Cancer in Gay and Bisexual Men: A Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:466-472.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".