Discussing sexuality with patients with Parkinson's disease: a survey among Dutch neurologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual functioning is often impaired in patientswith Parkinson’s disease (PD) and may affect quality oflife of patients and their spouse. However, little is knownabout the practice patterns of neurologists with regard todiscussing sexuality in this field. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate to what extent neurologistsdiscuss sexuality with PD patients. A 22-item questionnairewas sent to 139 neurologists specializing in PD. The surveycontained questions about their attitudes, knowledge, andpractice patterns with respect to sexual dysfunction (SD) inpatients with PD. The response rate of the survey was66.9%. Most participants (56.8%) stated that they addresssexuality in less than half of their PD patients. High age ofpatients (42.0%), insufficient consultation time (37.5%),and a lack of patients’ initiative to raise the topic them-selves (36.4%) were frequently reported barriers towardsdiscussing sexuality. The majority of participants consid-ered that discussing sexuality is a responsibility that laywith neurologists (85.2%), nurses (73.9%), and patients(72.7%). One quarter of the neurologists reported to haveinsufficient or no knowledge on SD. The majority of par-ticipants regarded screening for SD important or slightlyimportant (85.2%). A large proportion of Dutch neurolo-gists specializing in PD do not routinely discuss sexualitywith their PD patients. Sexual healthcare in PD patientsmay benefit from time-efficient tools and agreements onwho is responsible for discussing SD. Furthermore, rec-ommendations in PD guidelines on screening and manag-ing SD should be adapted to fit everyday practicehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ CC BY 4.0https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".