Response to Letters to the Editor on “Intermittent premature ejaculation: exploring an understudied phenomenon”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are delighted that the authors of the letters not only read our manuscript on Intermittent Premature Ejaculation (IPE) [1] but also raised relevant and thoughtful questions regarding PE symptomology in these men. As noted in our manuscript and further reiterated by the author of the first letter, intermittent/episodic PE may well overlay ejaculatory response patterns associated with either lifelong PE (LPE) or acquired (APE) PE. Thus, our advocacy is not so much for the recognition of a new (separate) PE subtype, but rather for further investigation of this form of PE and thoughtful reconsideration of the diagnostic criterion of “always or nearly always” occurrence, as specified in most definitions of PE. Specifically, in our view, this diagnostic criterion creates an unnecessary barrier for treatment of men having an intermittent or episodic form of PE. The author of this letter also raises the point about whether IPE is a possible precursor to LPE or APE. We agree that further longitudinal analyses are necessary to address this question. Relevant to this point, our retrospective study included data indicating that a high percentage (68%) of men with IPE reported worsening symptomology over their lifetime, in terms of either frequency or severity of symptomology (or both). This percentage was vastly higher than in men with either LPE or APE [2], [Supplemental Reference S1] and suggests that PE symptomology in men with IPE may well have been evolving over their lifespan. IPE men were also more likely to report persistent anxiety and medical issues compared with other PE men, suggesting that such conditions might constitute relevant risk factors (or even triggers) for their PE symptoms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
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".