Clinic Utilization and Characteristics of Patients Accessing a Prostate Cancer Supportive Care Program’s Sexual Rehabilitation Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PC) treatment leads to impairment of sexual function. The Prostate Cancer Supportive Care (PCSC) Program’s Sexual Rehabilitation clinic (SRC) assists patients and their partners with sexual recovery using a biopsychosocial approach to rehabilitation. This study characterizes patients seen in the SRC between July 2013–1 July 2019. Data was retrospectively abstracted from clinic records. In total, 965 patients were seen over 3391 appointments during the study period. Median age (standard deviation (SD)) was 66 years (SD = 7.1), 82.0% were partnered, yet 81.7% attended appointments alone. 88.0% were treated with surgery, 5.1% with brachytherapy, 3.7% with external beam radiation (EBRT), 1.8% with combined brachytherapy and EBRT, and 1.4% with androgen deprivation therapy. In total, 708 patients (73.4%) attended ≥1 follow-up appointment. Median time (SD) between end of prostate cancer treatment to first SRC appointment was 270 days (range 0–7766). The mean (SD) self-reported overall sexual satisfaction (extracted from International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5)) significantly increased both with erectile aids (1.69 (SD = 1.52) to 2.26 (SD = 1.66), p < 0.001, n = 148) and without erectile aids (1.71 (SD = 1.44) to 2.35 (SD = 1.57), p < 0.001, n = 235). This study provides guidance for further investigation to refine treatment, wait-times, support, and/or resource offerings in this type of program.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".