REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ON FEMALE SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION: DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Female sexual dysfunction is highly prevalent but not well defined or understood. We evaluated and revised existing definitions and classifications of female sexual dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interdisciplinary consensus conference panel consisting of 19 experts in female sexual dysfunction selected from 5 countries was convened by the Sexual Function Health Council of the American Foundation for Urologic Disease. A modified Delphi method was used to develop consensus definitions and classifications, and build on the existing framework of the International Classification of Diseases-10 and DSM-IV: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association, which were limited to consideration of psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: Classifications were expanded to include psychogenic and organic causes of desire, arousal, orgasm and sexual pain disorders. An essential element of the new diagnostic system is the "personal distress" criterion. In particular, new definitions of sexual arousal and hypoactive sexual desire disorders were developed, and a new category of noncoital sexual pain disorder was added. In addition, a new subtyping system for clinical diagnosis was devised. Guidelines for clinical end points and outcomes were proposed, and important research goals and priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend use of the new female sexual dysfunction diagnostic and classification system based on physiological as well as psychological pathophysiologies, and a personal distress criterion for most diagnostic categories.
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 | 0.257 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".