MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387949941 · doi:10.1093/jncics/pkad087

Sexual health outcomes among adolescent and young adult cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4387949941 on OpenAlexafffund
Niki Oveisi, Vicki Cheng, Lori A. Brotto, Stuart Peacock, Helen McTaggart‐Cowan, Gillian E. Hanley, Sharlene Gill, Meera Rayar, Amirrtha Srikanthan, Ursula Ellis, Mary A. De Vera

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Cancer Spectrum · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser UniversityCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesOttawa HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineOrgasmOdds ratioMeta-analysisConfidence intervalCancerYoung adultSexual dysfunctionGynecologyInternal medicineObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sexual health outcomes (SHO), which entail the physical, emotional, mental, and social impacts, are an important consideration for adolescent and young adults (AYA, ages 15-39) affected by cancer. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the current literature and evaluate AYA cancer impact on SHO. METHODS: EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from January 1, 2000 to September 28, 2022 to identify epidemiologic studies that used an analytic observational design, included individuals with AYA cancer and non-cancer control participants, and evaluated SHO. Odds ratios and prevalence ratios were calculated; random effects models were used to obtain pooled measures where possible. RESULTS: Of 2621 articles, 8 were included that investigated 23 SHO in 9038 AYA cancer patients. Based on the sexual response cycle, outcomes were categorized as those occurring among males (desire = 1, arousal = 1, orgasm = 4, other = 3) and females (desire = 2, arousal = 1, orgasm = 2, pain = 6, other = 3). It was feasible to conduct meta-analysis for 3 female SHO and 5 male SHO. There were associations between AYA cancer and 3 SHO: vaginal dryness (pooled odds ratio = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.02 to 7.70), ejaculatory dysfunction (pooled odds ratio = 3.66; 95% CI = 2.20 to 6.08), and testosterone level (pooled mean difference = -2.56 nmol/liter; 95% CI = -3.46 to -1.66; P = .00001). CONCLUSION: This study found increased ejaculatory dysfunction and reduced testosterone levels in male AYA cancer patients and increased vaginal dryness in female AYA cancer patients, highlighting the need for sexual health resources in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.036
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Cancer SpectrumSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207