MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391574133 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae001.063

(067) How Many Nerve Fibers Innervate the Human Glans Penis: A Histomorphometric Analysis of the Human Dorsal Nerve of the Penis

2024· article· en· W4391574133 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
PC Ferrin, M Uloko, BR Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClitorisPenisPudendal nerveAnatomyGlansGlans penisNerve fiberMedicineSexual arousalSexual behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The mainstream media has frequently quoted that the penis has “half as many” nerve fibers as the human clitoris. Recent work has demonstrated that the number of nerve fibers in the dorsal nerve of clitoris was under-estimated, and no study has yet quantified the number of axons in the human dorsal nerve of the penis (DNP). Improving our understanding of penile innervation and sexual response has potential implications for fields of medical and surgical practice. Several nerve transfers have recently emerged targeting the DNP for re-innervation in order to restore penile sensation and/or erectile function, demonstrating variability in outcomes. Understanding the axon counts of the DNP at the anatomic level that these nerve transfers are performed may inform technical refinements and improve our understanding of current outcomes. Comparing DNP axon counts to the recently reported axon counts of the dorsal nerve of the clitoris may also inform techniques in transgender genital surgery, anticipate sensory outcomes in penile allotransplantation and further our understanding of sexual responses across genitalia. Objective The objective of this study is to quantify the number of axons in the human dorsal nerve of the penis. Methods Bilateral DNP samples were obtained from 5 fresh frozen cadavers. Samples were collected at the base of the penis at the level of the pubic symphysis, a location commonly targeted for coaptation in nerve transfers. Specimens were placed in 3% glutaraldehyde, post-fixed in 1% osmium tetroxide and serially dehydrated in ethanol and toluene. They were embedded in araldite, sectioned on ultramicrotome into 1 μm cross-sections and counter-stained with 1% toluidine blue. Histomorphometric evaluation was performed at 1000x magnification using Leitz Laborlux S microscope and image analysis software (Clemex Vision Professional, Longueuil, Quebec) to obtain nerve fiber counts from each specimen (Figure). Results 10 DNP samples were analyzed. The mean number of axons in the human dorsal nerve of penis was 3,844 +/- 1,238 (range 1,915 to 5,494). Accounting for the bilaterality of the DNP, the mean total number of axons innervating the human glans penis was 7,688 +/- 1,762. Conclusions This study is the first to report the number of axons in the human dorsal nerve of the penis and approximate the number of axons innervating the human glans penis. At the level of the pubic symphysis, axon counts of the dorsal nerve of penis varied significantly and averaged 3,844. The variation in axon counts at this anatomic level was greater than seen in prior reports on the DNC and may be one factor contributing to variations in outcomes following nerves transfers for penile sensation and erection. This variation could also reflect the anatomic level of sample collection or differences in specimen origin (cadaver vs. live person). DNP axon counts were less than or equal to recently reported axon counts of the human glans clitoris, despite the much larger size of the glans penis. This finding may be important when considering clitoral construction in transgender genital surgery, penile allotransplantation and different in sexual responsiveness across genitalia. Disclosure No.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207