Sexual Thoughts Mediate the Association between Sexual Dysfunction and Pain Intensity in Men with Genital Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to test the mediation role of sexually-related thoughts on the relationship between sexual functioning and pain intensity in men with genital pain. Design and Method: A total of 50 men with genital pain completed an online survey. Participants answered the automatic thoughts subscale of the Sexual Modes Questionnaire (Male Version), the International Index of Erectile Function and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (the Short Form). Mediation analysis was conducted through linear regression equations. A Sobel test was used to assess the significance of the mediation effect. Results: In Step 1, the regression of sexual functioning on the mediator was significant, β = -.68, t(50) = -5.8, p <.001. Step 2 showed that the regression of sexual functioning on pain intensity was also significant, β = -.39, t(50) = -2.6, p =.014. Step 3 showed a significant effect of the mediator on the pain intensity, β = .68, t(50) = 3.8, p =.001. Also, sexual functioning was no longer a significant predictor of pain intensity, β = .06, t(50) = .37, p =.711. Additionally, the Sobel test found a partial mediation effect (z = 2.37, p = .018). Conclusions: Findings showed that negative sexually-related thoughts partially mediated the relationship between sexual functioning and pain intensity in men with genital pain. Results are consistent with previous research and reinforce the use of cognitive techniques in the evaluation and treatment of male genital pain.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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".