Intermittent premature ejaculation: exploring an understudied phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the lifelong and acquired subtypes of premature ejaculation (PE) have long been acknowledged, other putative PE subtypes have garnered less consideration. AIM: This study aimed to describe a potentially unrecognized form of PE characterized by episodic or intermittent symptomology rather than regular, consistent symptomology. METHODS: From an online sample of 409 men with PE, 31 identified as specifically having intermittent PE (IPE) rather than either lifelong PE (LPE) or acquired PE (APE). Data regarding PE symptomology-including lack of ejaculatory control, foreplay time and estimated ejaculation latencies (ELs) during PE episodes, foreplay time and estimated ELs during non-PE episodes, and other sexual characteristics-were collected to better describe and understand this group of men. OUTCOMES: Determination of sexual and ejaculatory response characteristics of men with IPE. RESULTS: Men with IPE exhibited PE-typical responses during 40%-90% of their partnered sex episodes (mean ≈ 70%). Depending on the type of partnered sex, mean EL responses during PE episodes ranged from anteportal ejaculation to ~2 minutes, whereas mean EL responses during non-PE episodes ranged from ~3 to 6.5 minutes (P < .001). EL comparisons were also made across types of partnered sex and masturbation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Some men exhibit PE-like symptoms, but do so only episodically or intermittently, a pattern that would technically prevent them from receiving treatment for PE according to most professional PE definitions. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study is the first to detail the sexual and EL characteristics of men who experience PE intermittently. The limitations include issues regarding generalizability due to the relatively small sample size and the inherent bias possible in online studies about sexuality. CONCLUSION: Men with IPE show all the characteristics of men with LPE and APE, except in the consistency with which their symptoms are manifested. Such men would qualify for treatment under ICD-11 guidelines but not under other professionally based diagnostic criteria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".