The association between sexual dysfunction and prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether there is a connection between sexual dysfunction (SD) and prostate cancer (PCa) is controversial. AIM: We sought to review the interrelationship between SD and PCa and to determine whether there is a definitive risk of men developing PCa after suffering from SD. METHODS: A complete search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to search for eligible studies published up to October 2022. The protocol for this meta-analysis is available from PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022342381). OUTCOMES: The associations between SD and the risk of PCa were assessed by calculating pooled ORs with 95% CIs, and the standard mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI were used to assess the relationship between SD and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels or prostate volume (PV). Random-effects models were used to account for potential heterogeneity, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Twenty studies involving 215,626 individuals were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with controls, subjects with SD had a 1.62-fold increased risk of PCa (OR = 1.62, 95% CI, 1.77-2.23, P = .003; heterogeneity: I2 = 97.8%, P < .001). Patients with SD had higher PSA levels than controls (SMD =0.07, 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.13, P = .041; heterogeneity: I2 = 55.6%, P = .027). However, there was no association between SD and PV (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.11, P = .122; heterogeneity: I2 = 48.5%, P = .100). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Current evidence confirms a potential link between SD and the risk of PCa and that SD in PCa patients should be of concern to clinicians. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The strength of this study is that it is to our knowledge the first meta-analysis of studies on the risk of PCa in men with SD. A limitation is that most of the studies included in this meta-analysis focused on ED. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis results suggest that men with SD have a higher risk of PCa and higher PSA levels than men without SD. However, this is merely inferential, and causality cannot be determined based on the current data. Further longitudinal studies should be performed to validate our preliminary findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".