High prevalence of erectile dysfunction in men with hyperthyroidism: a meta-analysis
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".