Vulvar vestibulitis syndrome: reliability of diagnosis and evaluation of current diagnostic criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of the diagnosis of vulvar vestibulitis as defined by Friedrich and to evaluate the usefulness of Friedrich's criteria in the diagnostic process. METHODS: In a university hospital, 146 women with dyspareunia had two sets of gynecologic examinations involving vulvar pain ratings, took part in structured interviews, and completed the McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: Kappa values for the vulvar vestibulitis diagnosis ranged from 0.66 to 0.68 for inter-rater agreement and from 0.49 to 0.54 for test-retest reliability. Mean vestibular pain ratings ranged from 2.45 at the 12 o'clock site to 7.58 at the 9-12 o'clock site; ratings for all sites correlated significantly between gynecologists. Pain in the labia majora and labia minora was minimal for both sets of examinations, with mean participant pain ratings ranging from 0 to 1.49. Gynecologists' erythema ratings did not correlate significantly with respect to either inter-rater agreement or test-retest reliability. Of Friedrich's three diagnostic criteria, only tenderness to pressure within the vulvar vestibule differentiated dyspareunia patients with and without vulvar vestibulitis. In reference to their coital pain, 88.1% of women with vulvar vestibulitis chose adjectives from the McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire describing a thermal quality, and 86.6% chose adjectives describing an incisive pressure sensation. CONCLUSION: Vulvar vestibulitis can be reliably diagnosed in women with dyspareunia. Pain is limited to the vulvar vestibule and can be rated and described in a consistent fashion by these women. Erythema does not appear to be a useful diagnostic criterion.
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 | 0.013 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".