Discussing the Sexual Health Impacts of Electronic Cigarette Use with Youth: A Proposed Framework to Support Urologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sexual health of young people during the youth age period is of utmost importance, as it sets the stage for sexual well-being over the life course. In addition to the existing challenges that youth face concerning their sexual health, electronic cigarettes may also negatively impact their sexual well-being. Specifically, through issues such as stuttering priapism, reduced sperm quality and quantity, and erectile dysfunction. Electronic cigarette use among youth is prevalent. Therefore, given the negative sexual health impacts associated with electronic cigarette use, coupled with the prevalent use of electronic cigarettes, it is necessary for youth to receive adequate support and guidance, so they understand the potential impacts that electronic cigarette use can have on their sexual well-being. Urologists are uniquely situated to play an important role in supporting the sexual health of youth, given their medical and surgical knowledge, however, it appears that they do not receive adequate training to carry out discussions about sexual health with youth. This paper aims to support urologists to have discussions with youth patients on the impact that electronic cigarettes have on their sexual health through a proposed four-step framework. This four-step framework involves: (i) establishing the relationship, (ii) assessing current electronic cigarette use, (iii) sharing research examining the impact of electronic cigarettes on sexual health, and (iv) discussing strategies to prevent/reduce or stop electronic cigarette use. It is necessary to acknowledge that this framework is only a small component of efforts to educate youth on the impacts that electronic cigarettes have on their sexual health. Moving forward, implementation and evaluation of this framework is needed.
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 | 0.038 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".