Physiology of Women’s Sexual Function: Basic Knowledge and New Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Data concerning the physiology of female sexual functioning are still obtained from animal studies, but an increasing amount of novel evidence comes from human studies. AIM: To gain knowledge of psychological and biologic physiology of women's sexual functioning, mainly addressing sexual arousal and orgasm. METHODS: A broad-based literature review of current knowledge of the psychological and biologic physiology aspects of women's sexual functioning. RESULTS: A comprehensive understanding of the anatomical, neurobiological, and psychological mechanisms behind sexual function and responses is of paramount importance. A biopsychological paradigm was considered when reviewing currently available data, thus considering aspects of: (i) sexual differentiation of the brain, which is critical for sex differentiation in behavior; (ii) central neurobiology of sexual function, highlighting specific and innovative findings from neuroimaging methods that enable visualization of active brain areas during arousal and orgasm; and (iii) peripheral functional anatomy, mainly addressing genital arousal and orgasm. Translational science was also covered, providing data about the actual role of sexual arousal in women in both procreation/reproduction and recreation/pleasure. The interaction between physiological and psychological states of women's sexual response, nonspecific sexual response, interoceptive awareness, and flexibility of sexual interests have also been addressed. CONCLUSION: Further research on normal physiology of women's sexual function is needed in order to expand and "translate" current knowledge into the pathophysiological clinical setting. This manuscript encompasses data presented at the 3rd International Consultation on Sexual Medicine in Paris, France, July 10-13, 2009.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".