The relationship between sexual dysfunction and insomnia symptoms in older men with prostate cancer and their partners: an actor-partner interdependence model approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Insomnia symptoms and sexual dysfunction are common among prostate cancer (PCa) patients and their partners. We explored the dyadic association between sexual dysfunction and insomnia symptoms in PCa patients and their female partners.Methods 36 couples [PCa patients (69.1 ± 7.4 years old) and partners (66.2 ± 7.8 years old)] completed self-report measures of insomnia symptoms, sexual function, and psychological wellbeing. The actor-partner interdependence model was used to determine how sexual dysfunction is associated with self- and partner’s insomnia symptoms.Results 63.9% and 50.1% of patients and partners reported insomnia symptoms respectively. Patients and partners had similar levels of sexual dysfunction and frequency, but patients were more bothered by sexual dysfunction than partners. Patients reported comparable levels of intimacies, and symptoms of depression and anxiety as their partners. Both actor and partner effects were found between partners’ sexual dysfunction on their own (B = .721, 95% CI: .259–1.183, P = .004), and on patients’ insomnia symptoms (B = .441, 95% CI: .074–.809, P = .021) respectively. However, patients’ sexual dysfunction was not related to their own and partners’ insomnia symptoms.Conclusion Sexual dysfunction of partners of PCa patients may influence their own and patients’ insomnia symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".