Psychophysical properties of female genital sensation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) is characterized by the presence of vulvar touch and pain hypersensitivity. Pain with vaginal distension, which motivates treatment seeking and perpetuates distress, is frequently reported with PVD. However, the concordance between the perception of vulvar and vaginal sensation (ie, somatic and visceral genital sensations, respectively) remains unstudied in healthy women, as well as in clinical populations such as PVD. To evaluate the static and dynamic (time-varying) properties of somatic and visceral genital sensation, women with PVD (n=14) and age- and contraceptive-matched healthy controls (n=10) rated varying degrees of nonpainful and painful genital stimulation. Somatic (vulvar) mechanical sensitivity to nonpainul and painful degrees of force were compared to visceral (vaginal) sensitivity to nonpainful and painful distension volumes. Results indicated that healthy women showed substantial individual variation in and high discrimination of vulvar and vaginal sensation. In contrast, PVD was associated with vulvar allodynia and hyperalgesia, as well as vaginal allodynia. Modeling of dynamic perception revealed novel properties of abnormal PVD genital sensation, including temporal delays in vulvar touch perception and reduced perceptual thresholds for vaginal distension. The temporal properties and magnitude of PVD distension pain were indistinguishable from vaginal fullness in healthy controls. These results constitute the first empirical comparison of somatic and visceral genital sensation in healthy women. Findings provide novel insights into the sensory abnormalities that characterize PVD, including an experimental demonstration of visceral allodynia. This investigation challenges the prevailing diagnostic assessment of PVD and reconceptualizes PVD as a chronic somatic and visceral pain condition.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".