Psychological profiles among women with vulvar vestibulitis syndrome: a chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and type of psychological distress in women with vulvar vestibulitis syndrome (VVS). A retrospective chart review was conducted of all women receiving a diagnosis of VVS referred to a tertiary care facility during a two-year period. Brief psychological questionnaires, including the Personality Assessment Screener, Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction, and the Phobia Rating Scale were administered. Fifty-consecutive cases were reviewed along with 12-15 month follow-up data for 41 cases. Phobic anxiety to vaginal touch or entry was significantly higher in women with VVS than normative data. Fear of Negative Evaluation was a strong associated feature, and for 30% approached clinically significant levels. Twenty-six percent showed a moderate, while another 26% showed a mild clinically distressed profile. Negative affect and social withdrawal were among the most frequently endorsed variables. Improvement in allodynia and intercourse were both related to these psychological variables, and a multiple regression analysis supported the use of psychological instruments in addition to standard medical assessment. A subgroup of women with VVS display clinically significant broad based psychological distress that warrants additional assessment. The use of psychological questionnaires in addition to medical assessment of women with VVS may provide valuable information predictive of treatment needs and response.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".