Sexual functioning and pain disorders in depressive women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction As the incidence of depression, both in Poland and the world, has increased in recent years, it seems important to consider it in a wider context, including its comorbidities. Aims The aim of the study was to assess anxiety, sexual functioning and pain disorders in women with depression. Methods The study encompassed 41 women, aged 18 - 65 years old, of whom 21 were assigned into the study group and 20 into the control group. The research was based on a two-part questionnaire. The first, general part involved socio-demographic data, basic patient history and sexuality-related questions. The other part was based on standardized tests, such as Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), McGill Pain Questionnaire - short form (SF-MPQ), Beliefs About Pain Control Questionnaire (BPCQ) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Results The two groups were homogenous with regard to mean age, age at menarche and the BMI. The study group had significantly lower FSFI results than the control group, which implies greater severity of sexual disorders. Moreover, a significant positive correlation between depressive disorders (BDI) and pain disorders (McGill scale) was observed in the study group. Conclusions Taking into consideration the multitude and severity of sexual functioning disorders and pain disorders in women with depression, careful diagnosis should be attempted in all cases. The participation of a sexologist and doctors of other specialties in both diagnosis and therapy should be considered.
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 | 0.000 | 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".