MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100735456

TITLE: Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors: A Review of the Clinical Effectiveness and Cost- Effectiveness

2010· article· en· W7100735456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTadalafilErectile dysfunctionDosingAntidepressantDepression (economics)SildenafilcGMP-specific phosphodiesterase type 5Serotonin reuptake inhibitor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Erectile dysfunction is the most commonly encountered form of sexual dysfunction in men and can cause significant distress, impaired quality of life, and have a negative effect on overall selfesteem and intimate relationships. 1 Risk factors for erectile dysfunction include older age, cardiovascular disease, smoking, diabetes, pelvic irradiation or surgery (e.g., radical prostatectomy), hypertension, medications (e.g., antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), and psychiatric conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression). 1 There are three oral medications currently on the market in Canada belonging to the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitor class: sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil. 2-4 These medications are all approved for use in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. 2-4 Sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil, are approved for use to be taken orally on an as needed basis a short period of time prior to intercourse (30 to 60 minutes; referred to as on demand dosing). 2-4 Tadalafil is also approved for once daily administration on a regular basis for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, but at a lower dose (10mg to 20mg for on demand dosing compared to 2.5mg to 5mg for the daily dosing). 4 In addition to its approved indication of the treatment of erectile dysfunction, PDE-5 inhibitors are also used intermittently to treat antidepressant

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207