Effect of epidural spinal cord stimulation on female sexual function after spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual dysfunction is a common consequence for women with spinal cord injury (SCI); however, current treatments are ineffective, especially in the under-prioritized population of women with SCI. This case-series, a secondary analysis of the Epidural Stimulation After Neurologic Damage (E-STAND) clinical trial aimed to investigate the effect of epidural spinal cord stimulation (ESCS) on sexual function and distress in women with SCI. Three females, with chronic, thoracic, sensorimotor complete SCI received daily (24 h/day) tonic ESCS for 13 months. Questionnaires, including the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS) were collected monthly. There was a 3.2-point (13.2%) mean increase in total FSFI from baseline (24.5 ± 4.1) to post-intervention (27.8 ± 6.6), with a 4.8–50% improvement in the sub-domains of desire, arousal, orgasm and satisfaction. Sexual distress was reduced by 55%, with a mean decrease of 12 points (55.4%) from baseline (21.7 ± 17.2) to post-intervention (9.7 ± 10.8). There was a clinically meaningful change of 14 points in the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury total sensory score from baseline (102 ± 10.5) to post-intervention (116 ± 17.4), without aggravating dyspareunia. ESCS is a promising treatment for sexual dysfunction and distress in women with severe SCI. Developing therapeutic interventions for sexual function is one of the most meaningful recovery targets for people with SCI. Additional large-scale investigations are needed to understand the long-term safety and feasibility of ESCS as a viable therapy for sexual dysfunction. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03026816 , NCT03026816.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".