MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223567640 · doi:10.1007/s40265-022-01696-1

Pharmacological Treatment for Pedophilic Disorder and Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder: A Review

2022· review· en· W4223567640 on OpenAlexaff
Valdemar Landgren, Josephine Savard, Cecilia Dhejne, Jussi Jokinen, Stefan Arver, Michael C. Seto, Christoffer Rahm

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsParaphiliaPsychiatryMedicineComorbidityAnxietyDistressClinical psychologyLibidoSexual behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of paraphilic disorders have historically been based on data from forensic settings and on risk levels for sexual crime. However, emerging treatment options are being evaluated for individuals experiencing distress because of their sexual urges and preferences, targeting both paraphilic disorders such as pedophilic disorder (PeD) and the new diagnosis of compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD) included in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). As in other mental disorders, this may enable individualized pharmacological treatment plans, taking into account components of sexuality (e.g. high libido, compulsivity, anxiety-driven/sex as coping), medical and psychiatric comorbidity, adverse effects and patient preferences. In order to expand on previous reviews, we conducted a literature search focusing on randomized controlled trials of pharmacological treatment for persons likely to have PeD or CSBD. Our search was not restricted to studies involving forensic or criminal samples. Twelve studies conducted between 1974 and 2021 were identified regardless of setting (outpatient or inpatient), with only one study conducted during the last decade. Of a total of 213 participants included in these studies, 122 (57%) were likely to have PeD, 34 (16%) were likely to have a CSBD, and the remainder had unspecified paraphilias (40, 21%) or sexual offense (17, 8%) as the treatment indication. The diagnostic procedure for PeD and/or CSBD, as well as comorbid psychiatric symptoms, has been described in seven studies. The studies provide some empirical evidence that testosterone-lowering drugs reduce sexual activity for patients with PeD or CSBD, but the body of evidence is meager. There is a need for studies using larger samples, specific criteria for inclusion, longer follow-up periods, and standardized outcome measures with adherence to international reporting guidelines.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugsSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207