MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024661158 · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2020.1761494

Preliminary validation of the Sexual Distress Scale-Short Form: Applications to Women, Men, and Prostate Cancer Survivors

2020· article· en· W3024661158 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sex & Marital Therapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalDalhousie UniversityCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressClinical psychologyProstate cancerSexual functionPsychologyScale (ratio)MedicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sexual Distress Scale (SDS) can be used to assess sexual distress in women, men, and prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. Despite its strong psychometric properties, researchers and clinicians could benefit from a short form of the scale. Two studies were conducted to develop (Study 1) and validate (Study 2) a short form of the SDS (SDS-SF) using samples of women, men, and PCa survivors from previous studies. Results of Study 1 suggested a 5-item SDS-SF. Study 2 showed that the SDS-SF items clustered in one factor with good fit across the three samples and excellent reliability. Sexual distress was associated with higher sexual bother, and poorer sexual satisfaction, sexual function, and relationship quality. The SDS-SF discriminated participants with and without distressing sexual problems. The SDS-SF facilitates the assessment of sexual distress in clinical settings by providing a quick way of screening patients with high levels of sexual distress.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.272 · 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