The Association between Insomnia and Orgasmic Difficulty for Prostate Cancer Patients – Implication to Sex Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual dysfunction and insomnia are common side effects of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, but the link between these symptoms has not been explored. We explore here the association between various sexual parameters and insomnia symptoms in PCa patients. Data were collected via an online survey with recruitment through various PCa organizations. One hundred and forty two patients (age = 67.3 ± 8.9 years) completed the survey. The majority were in a relationship (84.6%), of Caucasian ethnicity (83.1%), and 33% had previously received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Control variables-age, number of comorbidities, past ADT use, body mass index, depression, anxiety, fatigue and daytime sleepiness-explained 58.2% of the variance for insomnia symptoms. Including orgasm difficulty in the models accounted for an additional 2.1% in the variance in insomnia symptoms. Conversely, the control variables listed above together with insomnia symptoms predicted 37.7% of the overall variance in orgasm difficulty in PCa patients. These data suggest that sexual rehabilitation programs for PCa patients should assess insomnia symptoms, and therapies to improve sexual function or sleep quality may be beneficial in both functions given the relationship between sleep and orgasm functions in this population.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".