The role of erectile function in heterosexual relationship dynamics: a mixed methods study on women’s perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, an estimated 322 million male adults are affected by erectile dysfunction (ED). Almost half of male adults in their 40s have experienced ED, and this increases with each decade of life.1 Patients with ED report a reduced quality of life and higher healthcare utilization.1 Due to the heterogeneity of ED, patients may need to navigate several treatment options, including psychosocial support, medications, injectables, and surgery.1 Several studies have explored the experiences of cisgender women with partners with ED.1-3 A cross-sectional survey study assessed the association between sexual function in cisgender women and men. Overall, women with partners who had ED scored lower on the Female Sexual Function Index than those with partners without ED.2 Another cross-sectional study identified key areas where men and women partners held divergent beliefs. For example, 25% of women agreed with the statement “this problem has been devastating for me in some ways,” compared to 39% of men.3 These studies focused on sexual function rather than the global relationship impact of ED. Our objective was to investigate how cisgender women perceive the importance of erections in their relationships, and how ED influences intimacy, sexual satisfaction, and relationship dynamics.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".