MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172600072 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2021.03.001

Prostate Cancer From a Sex and Gender Perspective: A Review

2021· review· en· W3172600072 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

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Prostate cancerCancerMedicineOncologyGynecologyInternal medicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Factors influencing patient behavior regarding risk of prostate cancer (PCa) and outcomes of PCa treatments are poorly understood. Similarly, how PCa treatments affect patient sexual function and sense of their masculinity has not been fully investigated. A better understanding of the relationship between sex and gender for patients with PCa could significantly improve their care and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To review how concerns about sex and gender influence men's attitudes toward PCa screening, diagnosis, and treatment. To explore how PCa influences sexual function and self-perceived masculine identity. To examine contexts for PSA screening for transgender individuals. METHODS: We reviewed biomedical and sociological literature exploring the impact of PCa on patient sexual function and self-perceived masculinity using OVID, PubMed, and other databases. We similarly reviewed how masculine gender norms influence patient willingness to engage with PCa screening, diagnoses, and treatment. RESULTS: Gender norms and sexual function concerns influence patient engagement in all aspects of PCa care. This includes PSA screening, digital rectal examinations, active surveillance, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) amongst others. ADT is particularly challenging to sexual function, self-esteem, and masculine identity. Our research suggests that sex and gender are not separate concepts, but rather tightly intertwined, particularly when dealing with the realities experienced by patients with PCa. CONCLUSION: Interventions to help patients deal with the challenges of PCa and its treatment are likely to be most effective if they concurrently address patients' sexual needs and understanding of gender norms. PSA screening should be considered for transgender individuals who are at greater risk of cancer and on long-term hormone therapy. More research is needed on how concerns over sex and gender influence PCa screening, diagnosis, and treatment. There is also a need for long term data on the oncological outcomes of prolonged exposure to hormone therapy for patients who are transgender. Muermann MM, Wassersug RJ. Prostate Cancer From a Sex and Gender Perspective: A Review. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:142-154.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.298 · 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