MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417166958 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf320.281

(285) Examining Neurobiological Factors Associated With Erectile Dysfunction Severity in a Neurologically Healthy Cohort

2025· article· en· W4417166958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A Theophilopoulos, Emmanuel Owusu Ofori, Nahid Punjani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErectile dysfunctionDopaminergicCognitionNeuroimagingCohortDiseaseCohort studyRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Erectile Dysfunction (ED) is becoming increasingly recognized as a potential marker of chronic medical conditions. Recent research has examined the association between ED and Parkinson’s disease. In fact, recent findings indicate that men with ED have upwards of a fourfold higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared to those without a diagnosis of ED. Objective Our research investigates associations between self-reported ED severity and neurobiological factors, including measures of cognitive function and neuroimaging of dopaminergic integrity. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 93 male research participants with ED extracted from an observational cohort study of aging and Parkinson’s disease biomarkers. Though some patients experienced some age-related mild cognitive changes, all participants were classified as clinically neurologically healthy. Patients received cognitive testing through the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), with scores ranging from 0-30. Neuroimaging of the bilateral caudate and putamen, components of the striatum implicated in Parkinson’s disease pathology and dopaminergic binding, was measured through dopamine transporter SPECT imaging (DaTScan) binding ratios. ED was self-reported using questions 22-23 on the Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease – Autonomic Dysfunction (SCOPA-AUT). Question 22 stated “In the past month, have you been impotent (unable to have or maintain an erection?)” and question 23 stated “In the past month, how often have you been unable to ejaculate?”. SCOPA-AUT scores ranged from 0 (sometimes) to 3 (often) and were averaged across both questions. Patients taking dopaminergic Parkinson’s disease medications or PDE5 inhibitors at baseline were excluded due to potential confounding. Due to violations of normality assumption, numerical associations utilized an age-adjusted partial spearman correlation coefficient. Descriptive statistics are displayed as median (IQR). Results Of the 93 selected participants, one individual was excluded due to incomplete neuroimaging DaTScan data. Therefore, 92 patients were included in our analysis. The median age of participants was 67.3 years (61.4 – 73.0) and the median MoCA score was 27.2 (26.0, 28.7) which represents minimal cognitive impairment. Age-adjusted spearmen correlation coefficient showed no association between MoCA measured cognitive performance and ED severity (r = -0.116, p = 0.275). Age-adjusted associations of striatal DaTScan showed a significant, mild relationship between ED severity and both right caudate dopamine binding ratios (r = 0.236, p=0.0242) and left putamen dopamine binding ratios (r = 0.262, p = 0.0121). However, associations between ED severity and both left caudate (r = 0.150, p = 0.155) and right putamen (r = 0.143, p = 0.176) dopamine binding ratios did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions Although no association was observed between ED severity and cognitive function, greater ED severity was significantly associated with increased striatal dopaminergic binding. This positive, age-adjusted association may reflect a compensatory dopaminergic response similar to that seen in the early stages of Parkinson’s disease. Overall, our findings suggest that ED could serve as a potential marker of central dopaminergic and autonomic alterations, even in the absence of clinically evident neurological disease. Disclosure No

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207