Assessment of Sexual Activity in Patients With Back Pain Compared With Patients With Neck Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has shown significant adverse effects of chronic low back pain on sexual activity in 46% of patients. To establish whether and how chronic low back pain adversely affects sexual activity, a questionnaire-based study was conducted on a patient group (low back pain) and a comparison group (neck pain). Patients were administered a visual analog scale, a series of conventional questionnaires, and a specifically designed sexual activity questionnaire covering frequency of intercourse before and since onset of pain, discomfort during intercourse, satisfaction with sexual life, and comfortable and uncomfortable basic coital positions. Patients with low back pain reported more interference than did patients with neck pain, and women with low back pain were more affected than men. Compared with the other groups, women with low back pain had greater reduction in frequency of intercourse, more marked discomfort during intercourse, and more interference with their sexual lives. The most pain generating position was prone for both genders, and the most comfortable one was supine. Sexual impairment, more marked in women, seems to be related to the triggering of pain by intercourse and to psychologic factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".