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 OpenAlexaff
Martin M. Muermann, Richard J. Wassersug

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual Medicine ReviewsSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207