MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402577387 · doi:10.1017/s2045796024000441

Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction: barriers to quantifying incidence and prevalence

2024· review· en· W4402577387 on OpenAlexaff
David Healy, Dee Mangin

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual dysfunctionOrgasmEmbarrassmentPsychiatryLibidoSexual functionErectile dysfunctionClinical psychologyMedicinePsychologyPsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While sexual dysfunction is a well-known side effect of taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), in an undetermined number of patients, sexual function does not return to pre-drug baseline after stopping SSRIs. The condition is known as post-SSRI sexual dysfunction (PSSD) and is characterised most commonly by genital numbness, pleasureless or weak orgasm, loss of libido and erectile dysfunction. This article provides a commentary on the incidence and prevalence of PSSD based on a combination of academic literature as well as clinical and research experience. A number of obstacles to quantifying the occurrence of PSSD are outlined including difficulty in designing a suitable study method. Other contextual obstacles include patient embarrassment at raising sexual concerns, the response of healthcare professionals, inability to stop an antidepressant due to withdrawal issues in a proportion of patients and patient unawareness that their sexual difficulties are linked to prior medication compounded by variability of online information and a lack of information aimed at public education. A definition of PSSD with diagnostic criteria has been published. A MedDRA code for PSSD has also been introduced, but this is yet to be adopted by regulators.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and Psychiatric SciencesSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207