Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40426419›Full record

ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Sexual Motivation (Desire): Problems with Current Preclinical and Clinical Evaluations of Treatment Effects and a Solution.

Anders Ågmo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Anders ÅgmoDepartment of Psychology, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7087-0429

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been an extensive search for efficient pharmacological treatment of female sexual interest/arousal disorder and other sexual dysfunctions. However, available treatments have met limited success, except for the drugs used for treating erectile deficiency. A possible reason for this may be that both the preclinical and clinical evaluation of treatment effects have been inadequate. The present literature review shows that the intensity of sexual approach behaviors in non-human animals appears to be predictive of clinical effect whereas the traditional studies of copulatory behaviors and associated motor patterns have questionable predictive power regarding effects on human sexual desire. In clinical studies, it is essential to include the unconscious components of sexual motivation in any approach to its quantification. This basic fact is incompatible with the use of self-reports for evaluating treatment effects on motivation. Genital responses to sexual incentives are automatic and therefore outside of volitional control and can, therefore, provide unbiased estimates of the intensity of sexual motivation. These responses may be objectively quantified. Tests for implicit sexual motivation must also be used for capturing unconscious mental components. Including the unconscious components of sexual motivation as well as of objective measures of genital responses in clinical studies may improve evaluations of the effectiveness of drug treatment of low sexual interest/arousal disorder. In preclinical studies, predictive validity can be improved by quantifying sexual approach behaviors rather than copulatory behavior. The paradigm shift suggested here may finally allow for the discovery of efficient treatments for some sexual dysfunctions.

Indexed as

clinical trialsgenital responsesimplicit motivationlow sexual interest/arousal disorderpreclinical drug tests

Identifiers

PMID40426419
PMCPMC12109267

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.