MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416297159 · doi:10.1093/sexmed/qfaf088

Virtual versus in-person sexual rehabilitation for prostate cancer survivors: a retrospective cohort study comparing the Prostate Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic (PCRC) and the True North Sexual Health and Rehabilitation eClinic (SHAReClinic)

2025· article· en· W4416297159 on OpenAlex
Andrew Matthew, Steven Guirguis, Taylor Incze, Dalia Peres, Richard J. Wassersug, Lauren M. Walker, John W. Robinson, Deborah McLeod, Stacy Elliott, Antonio Finelli, Neil Fleshner, Leah Jamnicky, Shiyi Chen, Dean Elterman

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health NetworkDalhousie UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersProstate Cancer CanadaMovember Foundation
KeywordsProstate cancerRetrospective cohort studyRehabilitationReproductive healthSexual dysfunctionCohort studyCohortErectile dysfunction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sexual dysfunction is a common and distressing consequence of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, yet few healthcare institutions offer comprehensive, systematic care, limiting equitable access. Virtual models may improve accessibility and efficiency without sacrificing effectiveness. Aim: To assess whether outcomes in the virtual Sexual Health and Rehabilitation eClinic (SHAReClinic) were comparable to those in the in-person Prostate Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic (PCRC) in improving sexual health outcomes for PCa survivors. Methods: A retrospective cohort chart review was conducted on PCa patients enrolled in either the PCRC or SHAReClinic between September 2017 and August 2018, with data collected 12 months post-treatment. Clinic assignment was based on standard care pathways. Sexual health outcomes were measured using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), Sexual Distress Scale (SDS), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSIS), and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). Pro-erectile medication usage was also analyzed. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were SHIM and SDS scores. Secondary outcomes included MSIS, EPIC-26 scores, and pro-erectile medication use as an indicator for adherence and ongoing sexual activity. Results: = .042), no significant differences were found on the EPIC-26 sexual health domain. Pro-erectile medication use was similar in both groups. Multivariable analyses showed comparable outcomes in sexual function, distress, and health-related quality of life, except for intimacy. Clinical Implications: SHAReClinic yields comparable outcomes to PCRC and provides an effective, resource-efficient alternative to in-person sexual rehabilitation for PCa patients, particularly in settings with limited accessibility or resources. Strengths and Limitations: This study provides a comprehensive assessment of sexual health outcomes; however, the small sample size limits generalizability. In addition, there was a significant imbalance in treatment modality, with radiation patients represented only in the SHAReClinic cohort. Further research in larger, more diverse populations with longer follow-up is needed to confirm these findings and better understand intimacy differences. Conclusion: SHAReClinic demonstrates outcomes comparable to PCRC in managing sexual dysfunction in PCa patients, offering a viable and accessible option for sexual rehabilitation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.333 · 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