McGill pain questionnaire findings among women with vulvodynia and chronic yeast infection.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients referred for vulvar pain or candidiasis had different characteristics of pain as measured by the McGill Pain Scale or the number of McGill categories chosen. STUDY DESIGN: Data were collected at the University of Michigan Center for Vulvar Diseases between April 1998 and March 2003. The association between the McGill pain score and the number of McGill categories selected with the diagnostic categories of vestibulodynia, generalized vulvodynia and chronic yeast infections were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 196 women presented with vulvodynia (105 women with vestibulodynia, 91 women with generalized vulvodynia) and 50 women presented with Candida vulvovaginitis. The vulvodynia groups had McGill scores and numbers of categories selected that were increased compared with the Candida group (24.16+/-13.03 and 24.37+/-12.82 vs. 16.20+/-10.21 for the McGill score, p<0.001, and 9.22+/-4.11 and 9.87+/-4.44 vs. 7.30+/-3.70 for the numbers of categories selected, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Patients presenting with complaints of a yeast infection have a statistically lower McGill pain score and McGill pain indicators compared with patients with vulvar pain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".