Hormones and visual attention to sexual stimuli in older men: an exploratory investigation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Testosterone is associated with sexual desire and performance in men, but little is known about cognitive mechanisms underlying this relationship. Even less is known about the influence of estradiol, despite its production from testosterone, and high receptor density in brain regions related to male sexual behavior.Method We used eye-tracking to compare men’s visual attention to images of fully clothed (i.e. neutral) and minimally clothed (i.e. sexy) models in three groups: androgen-deprived (n = 6) and not androgen-deprived with prostate cancer (n = 11), and healthy controls (n = 7). We also assessed effects of serum testosterone, estradiol, and sex hormone-binding globulin levels.Results We found no group effect for fixations to sexy compared to neutral images, and no influence of testosterone on either total fixations, or proportion of fixations to sexy images. In contrast, we found that sex hormone binding globulin positively predicted total fixations, and estradiol positively predicted proportion of total fixations on sexy images--regardless of androgen treatment status.Conclusion Our results suggest that visual attention to sexual stimuli in men may be significantly affected by hormones. This has potential implications for clinical populations that experience sexual side effects, such as prostate cancer patients on androgen deprivation therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it