MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414633887 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98580-5_2

Erectile Dysfunction: A Harbinger of Cardiovascular Disease Risk

2025· book-chapter· en· W4414633887 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Salonia, Gerald Brock

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in andrology and sexual medicine · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErectile dysfunctionDiseaseEpidemiologyRisk factorPredictive valueRisk assessmentIntervention (counseling)Endothelial dysfunction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a significant source of morbidity and mortality despite improvements in treatment. The recognition of CV risk and the early identification of CVD are crucial to facilitate early intervention and preventative strategies. This chapter presents a critical review of the literature on the role of erectile dysfunction (ED) as an early marker for CVD risk. ED and CVD share a number of risk factors, while ED itself may be considered an important risk factor for CVD, particularly in younger men with arteriogenic ED. Epidemiological data support an association between ED and CVD, with reports suggesting that ED often occurs years prior to the onset of CVD. This reflects the shared pathophysiological mechanisms of ED and CVD and the earlier emergence of symptoms in small-diameter arteries, such as those in penile tissue, secondary to atherosclerosis and endothelial dysfunction. The importance of these observations is considered with respect to the clinical implications of studies exploring the predictive value of ED for future CVD risk. The chapter concludes with clinical insights into the role of ED in CVD risk assessment and the integration of ED assessment in routine CVD health screenings.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrends in andrology and sexual medicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207