High Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction in Men With Hyperthyroidism: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the association between hyperthyroidism and risk of erectile dysfunction (ED). Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for all studies evaluating men with hyperthyroidism who had erectile dysfunction, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Rating Scale to evaluate the quality of studies for meta-analysis, and Stata 16.0, RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meta-analysis. Results: A total of 4 papers with 25519 study subjects were included, of which the number of patients suffering from hyperthyroidism was 6429 and the number of controls was 19090. The overall prevalence of ED in patients with comorbid hyperthyroidism was 31.1% (95% CI 0.06-0.56). The incidence of ED in patients with combined uncomplicated hyperthyroidism was 21.9% (95% CI 0.05-0.38). The ED increased significantly in the group with hyperthyroidism in four studies (OR: 1.73; 95% CI [1.46-2.04]; p < .00001). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrates that patients with hyperthyroidism had more incidence of ED. These data can inform discussion between physicians and patients with hyperthyroidism regarding the choice of therapy for ED.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".