The association between uric acid and erectile dysfunction: A systematic review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the association between uric acid (UA) and erectile dysfunction (ED). Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were retrieved to identify studies published in English up to 31 June 2021. We preregistered this meta-analysis in the PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021267035). Two independent authors extracted the relevant data from all enrolled articles. We evaluated the quality of enrolled studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The standardized mean difference (SMD), as well as the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), was used to assess the difference between ED patients and healthy subjects. A total of five studies were enrolled for our meta-analysis to explore the association of UA with ED. The pooled SMD of the UA level difference between ED patients and healthy subjects was 0.42 (95% CI:0.09, 0.74, p < 0.001). There were no individual data that significantly influenced the pooled SMDs in the sensitivity analysis. There was no evidence of publication bias. This novel meta-analysis confirmed that UA was an independent risk factor for ED, which suggested that the erectile function of patients with elevated uric acid should be evaluated by clinicians.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".