High prevalence of erectile dysfunction in men with hyperthyroidism: a meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between hyperthyroidism and the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED). METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify relevant studies investigating the relationship between hyperthyroidism and ED in men. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle‒Ottawa Quality Rating Scale, and a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 and RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of four papers encompassing 25,519 study subjects were included in the analysis. Among these, 6,429 individuals had hyperthyroidism, while 19,090 served as controls. The overall prevalence of ED in patients with hyperthyroidism was determined to be 31.1% (95% CI 0.06-0.56). In patients with uncomplicated hyperthyroidism, the incidence of ED was 21.9% (95% CI 0.05-0.38). The combined odds ratio (OR) for the four studies was 1.73 (OR: 1.73; 95% CI [1.46-2.04]; p < .00001). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate a higher incidence of ED in patients with hyperthyroidism. These results provide valuable information for healthcare professionals and can facilitate discussions surrounding appropriate treatment options for ED in patients with hyperthyroidism.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it