Association Between Opioid Use and Risk of Sexual Dysfunction: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opioid use disorder (OUD) is defined by negative effects on oneself despite numerous efforts to stop it. Chronic opioid users have sexual dysfunctions such as erectile dysfunction, delayed ejaculation decreased libido, and sexual performance. To explore the association between the use of opioids and the risk of sexual dysfunction. This review was conducted from March 2023 to June 2023, and comprised of search on PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, OvidSP Science Direct, PubMed, Clinical Trials.gov, and Web of Science databases for experimental studies and randomized controlled trials related to OUDs published in peer-reviewed English-language journals between 2013 and 2023 (10 years). Of the 314 studies initially identified, 41(13%) were subjected to full-text assessment, and 10 were reviewed and analyzed (Figure). There were 2(20%) each study done in Egypt and Istanbul and 1(10) each in Germany, Canada, Spain, China, Poland, and Malaysia. All 10 (100%) studies were baes on opioid use and sexual dysfunction. Prospective studies showed that the occurrence of any sexual dysfunction ranged from 40% to 90% of opioid dependence. The most commonly studied observed sexual dysfunction is a lack of desire, erectile dysfunction, erectile dysfunction, and poor satisfaction. Our findings suggest that there is a significant link between opioid use and sexual dysfunction and that people who use opioids have higher rates of sexual dysfunction. Nevertheless, opioids have mind-altering properties that negatively affect various stages of the sexual cycle.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".