Reproductive Health Perceptions and Priorities of Males Living with CKD: A Survey Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) affects 1 in 10 Canadian males, and up to 80% of males living with CKD experience complications related to their reproductive health (sexual function and fertility). Despite its importance to overall health and quality of life, reproductive health is often overlooked during the management of CKD in males. This study aims to identify the reproductive health perceptions and priorities of males living with CKD. Methods: An exploratory web-based survey will be designed through a comprehensive literature review and in consultation with experts in the field of nephrology, urology, and reproductive health. The survey will assess reproductive health perceptions and priorities of males living with CKD and will use both close- and open-ended questions. Survey pre-testing by patient partners will assess validity, usability, and functionality. Snowball sampling will be employed to recruit self-identified adult males living with CKD, with invitations disseminated through national and international CKD patient organizations, social media platforms, and CKD clinics in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Results: Descriptive statistics will be employed to analyze numeric and Likert-scale data, while conventional content analysis will be utilized to analyze open-ended data. Conclusions: Reproductive health perceptions and priorities of males living with CKD are poorly understood. Our findings will guide future patient-directed research and encourage the development of targeted interventions to address the reproductive health needs of males living with CKD.
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 | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".