Clinical course of chronic pelvic pain in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A follow-up study on a cohort of women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) was conducted, to evaluate the clinical course and to identify factors associated with outcome. Participants were over 18 years of age and had initially visited a multidisciplinary CPP-team of a Gynaecological Department of a University Hospital. The course of chronic pelvic pain was evaluated using the Life Chart Interview (LCI) method. All participants completed questionnaires covering demographic and clinical characteristics, pain (McGill) and psychological distress (SCL-90) at baseline and follow up. The response rate was 60%. A survival analysis was conducted. After a mean follow-up period of 3.4 years, 18 women (25%) of the study sample (N=72) reported recovery from pelvic pain (i.e. pelvic pain for less than 3 months per year). Eight of these 18 women (11% of the total sample) reported no pain at all at follow up. Relapse of symptoms was not encountered. Not any demographic, clinical or pain related variable measured at baseline, nor any intervention between baseline and follow up, was associated with outcome. Our results indicate that chronic pelvic pain in women in secondary care is a longstanding condition. Further research is recommended to identify risk factors for persistence of symptoms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".