Sexual dysfunction in patients with adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptomatology, comorbid diseases, and pharmacological treatment with antidepressants can have a negative impact on sexual function, which in turn increases the likelihood of sexual dysfunction in people with ADHD. The objective of this pilot study was to differentiate and delineate possible sexual dysfunction in adults with ADHD. Adult ADHD patients (n = 32, cisgender / heterosexual) and healthy controls (n = 32, cisgender / heterosexual) filled out the DÄS-Zuf questionnaire with 59 items (Krieger, 2013). This questionnaire is divided into the scales “general contentment with life,” “anxiety/depression,” “sexual dysfunction” and “sexual satisfaction.” Patients with ADHD had significantly higher scores on single items measuring various aspects of sexual dysfunction as well as higher scores on the “anxiety/depression” scale and lower scores on the “general contentment with life” scale. Following repeated measures analyses of covariance in which the scale “anxiety/depression” was controlled as covariate, none of the previously differences for single items between ADHD patients and controls remained significant. ADHD patients with methylphenidate showed stronger physical sexual arousal compared to those without methylphenidate. The results of this pilot study suggest several explanations for sexual dysfunction among adults with ADHD and offer tentative routes for practical treatment approaches.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".