MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041056431 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.05.028

Trends in Sexual Activity and Associations with All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality Among US Adults

2020· article· en· W3041056431 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Cao, Lin Yang, Tianlin Xu, Patricia Cavazos‐Rehg, Qinran Liu, Daragh T. McDermott, Nicola Veronese, Thomas Waldhoer, Petre Cristian Ilie, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Lee Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsSouth Health CampusUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersUniversiteit Stellenbosch
KeywordsNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyMedicineDemographyReproductive healthDiseaseCause of deathGerontologyEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sexual activity can be referred to as a health behavior and may also act as an indicator of health status. AIM: To evaluate temporal trends in sexual activity and to examine associations of sexual activity with all-cause and cause-specific mortality risk. METHODS: We examined the trends and prevalence of sexual activity and association of sexual activity with all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a nationally representative sample using data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2005 to 2016 and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2014 Linked Mortality File (through December 31, 2015). OUTCOMES: All-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality. RESULTS: A total of 15,269 US adults (mean age, 39.1 years [standard error, 0.18 years]) were included in the trend analysis. In the 2015-2016 cycle, while 71.7% (95% CI, 67.7-75.7%) US adults aged 20-59 years engaged in sexual activity ≥ 12 times/year (monthly), only 36.1% (95% CI, 31.6-40.7%) of them engaged in sexual activity ≥ 52 times/year (weekly). Since the 2005-2006 cycle, the estimated prevalence of sexual activity, ≥52 times/year and ≥12 times/year, were both stable over time among overall and each age group (all P for trend >0.1). During a median follow-up of 5.7 years (range, 1-11 years) and 71,960 person-years of observation, among 12,598 participants with eligible information on mortality status, 228 deaths occurred, including 29 associated with cardiovascular disease and 62 associated with cancer. Overall, participants with higher sexual activity frequency were at a lower risk of all-cause death in a dose-response manner (P for trend = 0.020) during the follow-up period. In addition, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, cancer mortality, and other cause mortality among participants who had sex ≥52 times/year compared with those having sex 0-1 time/year were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.76), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.19 to 3.21), 0.31 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.84), and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.96), respectively. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Sexual activity appears to be a health indicator of all-cause and cancer mortality in US middle-aged adults. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Clear strengths of the present study include the large representative sample of the noninstitutionalized US population as well as the identification of precise estimates in relation to sexual activity and mortality. However, because of the observational nature of the study design, causality could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual activity was found to be associated with a lower risk of mortality from all cause and cancer. Cao C, Yang L, Xu T, et al. Trends in Sexual Activity and Associations With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality Among US Adults. J Sex Med 2020;17:1903-1913.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207