MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412676163 · doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qeaf029

How has the biopsychosocial model fared in sexual medicine and sex therapy?

2025· review· en· W4412676163 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelPsychosocialMultidisciplinary approachSexual medicineMedicinePsychotherapistScope (computer science)PsychologyClinical psychologyMedical educationPsychiatrySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The purported predominance of the biopsychosocial model is reviewed, including its underlying factors that determine the etiology and treatment of sexual disorders. We recommend that sexual health professionals embrace a broader recognition of all facets of the model. Periodic re-examination is necessary to optimize its strengths and minimize misapplication. OBJECTIVES: Improving the application of the full scope of the biopsychosocial model will help ensure that it remains robust and inclusive. Awareness of its limitations should prompt clinicians to expand their knowledge through continuing education. METHODS: Co-authors reviewed database searches, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Publications, sexual society presentations, and guidelines were also considered, along with expert opinions. Authored by an intentionally recruited, diverse group of experts representing different disciplines, geographic regions, genders, and perspectives, our manuscript deserves substantial consideration. However, this work does not employ the rigorous methodology used by professional societies in producing guidelines. RESULTS: The biopsychosocial model is widely used; however, too many sex therapists and sexual medicine experts claim to adopt the model while merely paying it lip service. Clinicians support multidisciplinary approaches, yet siloed thinking persists. Collegial respect is increasing, but perspectives remain divided. While sex therapists recognize psychosocial nuances, many are unaware of biomedical advances in diagnosis and treatment that impact sexuality. Conversely, many physicians lack sufficient awareness of the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and cultural factors contributing to sexual disorders. Physicians who prefer broader assessments often find that time constraints in clinical practice hinder multilayered engagement. CONCLUSION: The biopsychosocial model must encompass all predisposing, precipitating, and maintaining biological, medical/surgical, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, social, and cultural factors involved in the etiology and management of sexual disorders. Etiology is best understood at a granular level that acknowledges multiple proportional contributing factors. We recommend that clinicians across disciplines increase their awareness of all relevant etiologic and treatment factors while continuing to use the accessible term "biopsychosocial."

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.342
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.095 · 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