Clinical profile of vulvodynia patients. A prospective study of 300 patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define the demographic and clinical characteristics of women presenting with vulvodynia. STUDY DESIGN: Vulvodynia patients seen by the author between September 1996 and June 1999 were included in the study. Patients completed a standardized questionnaire and were interviewed and clinically examined. RESULTS: Three hundred one patients completed the questionnaire. The average age was 38 years old, 72% reported postsecondary education, 54% were nulligravid, and 55% were married. Average duration of symptoms was 38 months. Patients reported dyspareunia (71%), vulvar burning (57%) and vulvar itching (46%). One-third reported problems with sexual response. The majority (64%) reported a "history" of yeast infections. Over 64% of the time all therapeutic interventions tried by patients made the vulvar symptoms no better or worse. Approximately 55% reported another chronic health condition. Positive physical findings were often limited to inflammation in the vestibule (25%) and pain on palpation of the posterior vestibule (69%). Patients reported that their vulvodynia limited their physical activities. CONCLUSION: Physicians should approach management of vulvodynia using a chronic pain model that emphasizes multidisciplinary health care and "improvement" in health, rather than single interventions and cure of disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".