MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144419143 · doi:10.1080/00918369.2021.1905384

Sexual Dysfunction in Gay and Bisexual Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Concept Analysis

2021· article· en· W3144419143 on OpenAlexaff
Evan Mitchell, Erin Ziegler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Homosexuality · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerSexual dysfunctionErectile dysfunctionContext (archaeology)PsychologyClinical psychologyHuman sexualityPsychotherapistMedicineCancerPsychiatryInternal medicineGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual dysfunction is a common side effect of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, yet it remains poorly defined in the literature. Current definitions are based on heteronormative assumptions which do not consider the unique experiences of gay and bisexual (GBM) PCa survivors. The purpose of this paper is to use Walker and Avant's method to conduct a concept analysis of sexual dysfunction among GBM in the context of PCa survivorship. The review included 46 articles published between 2002-2019. The following attributes were identified: (1) erectile dysfunction, (2) ejaculatory change (anhedonia/anejaculation), (3) urinary incontinence/climacturia, and (4) anodyspareunia. For GBM PCa survivors, sexual dysfunction involves reduced or abnormal functioning of four core elements of a sexual encounter, which inhibit GBM from engaging in and being satisfied with sexual activity.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HomosexualitySame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207