A novel approach to premature ejaculation: extracorporeal functional magnetic stimulation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Premature ejaculation (PE) is a common sexual dysfunction. Treatment ranges from behavior modification to systemic and topical pharmacological treatments. Results to date have been generally inconsistent and of limited effectiveness. New avenues of therapy are needed. AIM: To investigate the effect of extracorporeal functional magnetic stimulation (FMS) as a noninvasive treatment for men with PE. METHODS: The NeoControl System for FMS was used in the study. Baseline assessment included: history and physical, medications, hormonal assessment and intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IVELT) by stopwatch determination. Treatment involved a first phase of five biweekly sessions (primary outcome). Men who reported an improvement in IVELT and desired to continue were given a second identical course (secondary outcome). Outcome measures included: IVELT and a global assessment questionnaire (GAQ). The responses incorporated both the patient's perception of response together with the more objective IVELT timing and were rated as: 1. Worse: no improvement in GAQ or mean IVELT for the total number of attempts; 2. Unchanged: improvement in IVELT but the patient reported no improvement; 3. Slightly improved: increase in IVELT < 100% and a reported mild improvement and 4. Better: IVELT increase of > or = 100% with GAQ indicating "moderate" to "marked" improvement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two primary outcome measures were considered in both treatment phases, the IVELT and the GAQ. RESULTS: Fourteen men were treated. Their mean age was 43.7 years. Fifty-seven percent reported primary PE and 63% were circumcised. Hormone levels were normal in all. Baseline IVELT for the group was 60.6 seconds. All patients completed phase I. Of these, 50% reported no change in the GAQ although they recorded an increase in IVELT; 29% were categorized as slightly better and 14% as better. Eight men entered phase II. Of these, 3 (37.5%) were unchanged; 2 (25%) were slightly better and 3 (37.5%) were classified as better. The response in these last three has persisted for over 6 months post treatment. Both phases of the study showed a trend towards IVELT improvement, more evident at the end of phase II. However the differences did not reach statistical significance on either phase. Side effects were mild and non-treatment related. DISCUSSION: The use of FMS is claimed to alter the spinal centers without altering cerebral neurotransmitters. Although there were some remarkable responses, our results, are not better than the purported responses to behavioral or pharmacological methodologies. There was a clear trend in IVELT improvement; however, this didn't translate into an equivalent subjective estimation by most of the subjects. This outcome dissonance might be diminished by longer/more intense regimens of treatment. The pilot nature of the study does not permit to draw solid conclusions but stimulate the search for a new therapeutic option in PE.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".