Vulvar Vestibulitis Syndrome: A Form of Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether vulvar vestibulitis syndrome is a form of reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between October 1, 1998, and February 16, 1999, 20 subjects attending a gynecology clinic at a tertiary care center received diagnoses of vulvar vestibulitis syndrome. A history was recorded, and a gynecological examination was performed for each, including a detailed description of the vulva, vaginal Gram's stain, vaginal culture, pH, and wet preparation of any discharge. Vulvar examination included assessing each subject's response to touch, pressure, pinprick, vibration, and cold. Subjects completed the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty subjects with vulvar vestibulitis syndrome (average age, 30.6 years; range, 20-71 years) had pain present an average of 4 years and 8 months (range, 6 months-33 years). Pain occurred with entry dyspareunia, tampon insertion, or touching of the vestibule. Vulvar vestibular erythema was present in 13 subjects. None of the 20 subjects felt pain to light touch on the vulvar vestibule. Light pressure produced allodynia in all 20. Nine subjects had hyperalgesia to pinprick; five subjects had allodynia in response to vibration; and three subjects experienced allodynia to cold. Summation and aftersensation to test modalities were uncommon. CONCLUSION: Though both vulvar vestibulitis and reflex sympathetic dystrophy seem to be neuropathic pain syndromes, they do not share enough physical characteristics to be considered the same pathological processes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".