Erectile dysfunction as a holistic indicator of well-being: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED), affecting around 52% of men aged 40-70, is a significant marker of overall health and a potential warning sign of multiple conditions like cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), diabetes, and mental health disorders. Recognizing and addressing ED through a holistic approach involving nutrition, physical activity, sleep, and stress management can improve both erectile and overall health outcomes. AIMS: To provide a narrative review of the available literature on the relationship between ED and overall health, elaborate on the possible mechanisms explaining this association, and discuss the effects of lifestyle on ED. METHODS: A search of the medical literature was carried out in PubMed and Medline, focusing on original research and systematic reviews of original research on ED and overall health. RESULTS: Due to shared pathophysiological mechanisms like endothelial dysfunction, ED is a significant indicator of overall health, particularly related to CVD and diabetes mellitus. Multiple studies have shown that ED frequently precedes cardiovascular events and is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, especially in younger men and those with diabetes. It also has a profound, bidirectional relationship with mental health conditions like depression and anxiety, creating a vicious cycle where each exacerbates the other. The four health pillars of nutrition, physical activity, sleep, and stress management play significant roles in erectile function and overall sexual health. CONCLUSION: ED is not just a condition affecting sexual function but a critical indicator of broader health issues. By adopting an integrative approach that combines nutrition, physical activity, sleep, and stress management, healthcare providers can offer holistic and effective management strategies for this condition.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".