Sexual Functioning in Female Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer—A Single-Center, Prospective Triple Timepoint Yearly Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was aimed at assessing the quality of sexual functioning in female patients having undergone surgical treatment for cancer depending on the type of surgery. The prospective cohort consisted of 48 female patients (23 patients with stoma [A2] and 25 patients with maintained continuity of the GI tract [A1]). Study methods included a diagnostic survey and the analysis of medical records of patients. Research tools consisted of a standardized FSFI questionnaire and a proprietary form for evaluation of sociodemographic data. Measurements were performed at threetimepoints: On the day before the surgery (Measurement I) as well as six and 12 months after the surgery (Measurements II and III, respectively). Statistically significant differences in results were observed in Measurements II and III in the subscales of arousal (II:p = 0.0068, III:p = 0.0018), lubrication (II:p = 0.0221, III:p = 0.0134), orgasm (II:p = 0.0044, III:p = 0.0021), satisfaction (II:p = 0.0021, III:p = 0.0433), and pain/discomfort (II:p = 0.0343, III:p = 0.0473). In all cases, lower scores corresponding to lower quality of sexual functioning were observed in patients in whom stoma had been performed. Statistically significant differences in sexual functioning were observed at Measurements II and III in each group, with the results being significantly (p > 0.05) worse in patients having undergone Hartmann’s procedure or abdominoperineal resection). Variables significantly affecting self-assessed sexual satisfaction included marital status, age, and modality of neoadjuvant treatment. Restoration of the continuity of the gastrointestinal tract is a chance for better self-assessment of the patient’s quality of life as regards sexual functioning.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".