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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.055
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