A Review of Physical and Psychological Factors in Vulvar Vestibulitis Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review is based on a MEDLINE search of all papers on vulvar vestibulitis syndrome (VVS) published 1995-2000. The causation, natural history and prevalence of VVS are unknown. There is no convincing evidence that VVS is the result of an infection or of an allergy. It has been proposed that it is an atypical pain syndrome but there is currently no clear evidence that this is so. The usual diagnostic criteria used in VVS are of doubtful discriminative value. Findings from biopsies of women with VVS are inconsistent. While there is some evidence to suggest that women with VVS attending clinics differ psychologically from normal controls, it is not clear whether these differences reflect the effects of VVS, are the result of patient selection or influence the development of the disease. Several treatments, including biofeedback, psychosexual treatment and surgery have been reported to be successful in some patients but there is a lack of proper placebo-controlled trials on which to base estimates of efficacy. There is a vital need for further, high-quality, research in this area.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".