Gut Microbiota On Erectile Dysfunction : a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erectile dysfunction (ED) has significant physical and psychological effects on both patients and their partners. Beyond disrupting sexual relationships and family dynamics, ED is often associated with comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, and other mental health disorders. A potential relationship is suggested by variations in our gut microbiota the composition between ED patients and healthy people. This study aims to evaluated relationship between gut microbiota and ED. Materials & Methods : A systematic review was conducted with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, with PICO framework to focus on individuals with ED. The intervention analyzed was gut microbiota compared to healthy controls, with the primary outcome being gut microbiota associated with ED. Search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from 2020 to 2025 using keywords such as "gut microbiome," "gut microbiota," "intestinal microbiome," and "gut flora" combined with "erectile dysfunction." Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and the risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results : A total of 64 studies underwent screening, 7 were included in the final analysis. The results showed correlation between ED and changes in the gut microbiota. A higher risk of ED was associated with increased populations of Lachnospiraceae, Oscillibacter, Tyzzerella3, Senegalimassilia, and Actinomyces. On the other present, a lower risk of ED was related to Ruminococcaceae UCG013, Coprococcus 1, Lachnospiraceae FCS020, Prevotella, and Bifidobacterium. Moreover, ED patients had more species of Streptococcus, Subdoligranulum, Bacteroides, Fusobacterium, and Escherichia-Shigella genera compared to species Blautia, Roseburia, Ruminiclostridium 5, and Lactococcus. Conclusion : The role of gut microbiota in ED, with Lachnospiraceae, Oscillibacter, Tyzzerella3, and Senegalimassilia increasing risk, while Ruminococcaceae UCG013 is protective. However, further research is needed to understand microbial mechanisms and explore gut microbiota modulation as a potential therapeutic strategy.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".