PD20-06 EVALUATION OF VULVAR HEALTH FROM PHOTOGRAPHS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Female (PD20)1 Apr 2019PD20-06 EVALUATION OF VULVAR HEALTH FROM PHOTOGRAPHS Irwin Goldstein*, James Simon, Andrew Kaunitz, Corrado Altomare, Yuki Yoshida, Julie Zhu, Samuel Schaffer, and Graziella Soulban Irwin Goldstein*Irwin Goldstein* More articles by this author , James SimonJames Simon More articles by this author , Andrew KaunitzAndrew Kaunitz More articles by this author , Corrado AltomareCorrado Altomare More articles by this author , Yuki YoshidaYuki Yoshida More articles by this author , Julie ZhuJulie Zhu More articles by this author , Samuel SchafferSamuel Schaffer More articles by this author , and Graziella SoulbanGraziella Soulban More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555738.52489.74AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed efficacy and safety of ospemifene 60 mg QD in 631 postmenopausal women (age 40-80) with moderate to severe vaginal dryness as the most bothersome symptom (MBS) of VVA due to menopause. The primary aim was validation of vulvar photography as an objective measure of vulvar health. The secondary aim was to compare Vulvar Imaging Assessment Scale (VIAS) data from photographs to visual study measures assessed by investigators at each site, including Vaginal Health Index (VHI), and Vulvar Health Index (VuHI). METHODS: Photographs from sites were sent to a central monitoring system, uploaded to a dedicated website and accessed by three expert reviewers who independently assessed vulvar blinded images using a calibrated standardized monitor. Photographs were graded (none/mild/moderate/severe 0-3, cannot evaluate) for 9 criteria: labia majora loss, labia minora loss, clitoris size, urethral glans prominence, introital stenosis, introital pallor, introital erythema, introital moisture, mucosal inflammation. VHI evaluated vaginal fluid secretion, overall elasticity, pH, condition of epithelial mucosa, moisture as normal/mild/moderate/severe. VuHI rated vulvar appearance of labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, introitus appearance/elasticity, color, discomfort, pain as normal/mild/moderate/severe. RESULTS: 316 ospemifene and 315 placebo subjects were randomized. VIAS, range 0-27, was graded at baseline (ospemifene, 13.8; placebo, 14.1) and week 12, lower values showing better vulvovaginal health. The difference between treatment groups in least square (LS) mean change from baseline was -1.0 (p = 0.0118) at week 12, representing a greater decrease in the ospemifene group relative to placebo. VHI, range 5-25, was graded at baseline (13.0 in both groups) and week 12, higher values being better vaginal health. The difference between groups in LS mean change from baseline was week 4: 2.5, week 8: 2.9, week 12: 2.8 (all p < 0.0001), with greater increases in the ospemifene group. VuHI, range 0-21, was graded at baseline and week 12, with lower values indicating better vulvar health. The mean VuHI total score at baseline (ospemifene, 7.6; placebo, 7.7) was similar in both groups. The difference between groups in LS mean change from baseline was -0.8 (p = 0.0002) at week 4 and -1.1 to -1.2 at weeks 8 and 12 (both p < 0.0001), a statistically significant decrease in the ospemifene group compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of vulvar health from photograph images to assess MBS of menopausal women should be considered for future trials. Source of Funding: Duchesnay, Inc. San Diego, CA; Washington, DC; Jacksonsille, FL; Florham Park, FL; Florham Park, NJ; Blainville, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e379-e379 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Irwin Goldstein* More articles by this author James Simon More articles by this author Andrew Kaunitz More articles by this author Corrado Altomare More articles by this author Yuki Yoshida More articles by this author Julie Zhu More articles by this author Samuel Schaffer More articles by this author Graziella Soulban More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,390 | 0,083 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».