MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229533180 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.694

Routine cardiac assessment is not necessary for all patients with erectile dysfunction

2013· article· en· W4229533180 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Naif Alhathal, Serge Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErectile dysfunctionMedicineIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

rectile dysfunction (ED) is defined as the persistent inability to achieve and/or maintain an erection sufficient for satisfactory sexual performance.The combined prevalence of minimal, moderate and complete ED was reported as high as 52% from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. 1 At age 40, there is an about a 40% prevalence rate, increasing to almost 70% in men at age 70. 1 In Canada, a similar overall prevalence of ED was reported (49.4%). 2 In addition, ED been shown to have a negative impact on a patient's quality of life, sexual relationships and overall well-being.3 The etiology of ED fits in one of 3 categories: organic, psychogenic or, most commonly, a combination of both.Phophodiesterase-5 (PDE) inhibitors revolutionized ED treatment and is the first-line treatment.These agents have been shown to be effective with good safety profiles in a comorbid population of men with ED, including patients with vascular disease, coronary artery disease (CAD), hypertension and diabetes.[4][5][6] Treatment options for patients not responding to oral drugs (or contraindicated) include intracavernous injections, intraurethral alprostadil, vacuum-constriction devices and penile prosthesis.7

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)0.006
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207