MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207074886 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2021.12.002

Should We Call It a Prostate? A Review of the Female Periurethral Glandular Tissue Morphology, Histochemistry, Nomenclature, and Role in Iatrogenic Sexual Dysfunction

2022· review· en· W4207074886 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 · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstateOrgasmUrethraSexual dysfunctionMedicineEjaculationErectile dysfunctionImmunohistochemistryErectile tissuePathologyAnatomyUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is evidence of glandular tissue within the region of the anterior vaginal wall-female periurethral tissue (AVW-FPT) having similar morphology and immunohistochemistry to the prostate in men and having physiological roles in the female sexual response (FSR). Whether this tissue should be called a prostate in women has been debated. Iatrogenic injury to structures of the AVW-FPT, including these glands and the associated neurovasculature, could be a cause of female sexual dysfunction (FSD). OBJECTIVES: To consolidate the current knowledge concerning the glandular tissue surrounding the urethra in women, evidence was reviewed to address whether: (i) these glands comprise the prostate in women, (ii) they have specific functions in the FSR, and (iii) injury to the AVW-FPT and prostate has sexual dysfunction as a likely outcome. METHODS: A literature review was conducted using keywords including female prostate, Skene's/paraurethral glands, periurethral tissue, Gräfenberg (G)-spot, female ejaculation, mid-urethral sling (MUS), and sexual dysfunction. RESULTS: Histological and immunohistochemical studies of the glandular tissue surrounding the urethra support the existence of prostate in women. Evidence suggests this tissue may have physiologically and clinically relevant autonomic and sensory innervation, and during sexual arousal may contribute to secretions involved in ejaculation and orgasm. Gaps in knowledge relating to the functional anatomy, physiological roles, and embryological origins of this tissue have impeded the acceptance of a prostate in women. Injury to the innervation, vasculature, and/or glandular tissue within the surgical field of MUS implantation suggests iatrogenic sexual dysfunction is plausible. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing to advance our understanding of the morphology, histochemistry, and physiologic capacity of this glandular tissue will clarify the characterization of this tissue as the "prostate" involved in the FSR, and its role in FSD following surgical injury. Tomalty D, Giovannetti O, Hannan J, et al. Should We Call It a Prostate? A Review of the Female Periurethral Glandular Tissue Morphology, Histochemistry, Nomenclature, and Role in Iatrogenic Sexual Dysfunction. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:183-194.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.263 · 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