Evaluation of the Frequency and the Association of Sexual Pain and Chronic Headaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual pain and chronic headaches are both complex conditions with associated high disability. Little research has examined whether there is a relationship between the 2. The aim of this survey-based study was to explore the frequency of sexual pain in a population of women being treated for chronic headache. Peripheral aims included exploring the number of patients receiving treatment for sexual pain and the association between sexual pain and libido, and history of abuse. METHODS: Patients presenting to an ambulatory chronic headache clinic were administered a short 10-item survey. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of patients reported that they had pelvic region or genital pain brought on by sexual activity. Only half of these patients had ever discussed their pelvic pain with a health care provider, and 31% of these patients had not received treatment. Almost all patients would be interested in treatment if available. Seventy-five percent of patients indicated a change in libido. CONCLUSION: Chronic headaches and sexual pain are both conditions that have a significant impact on patients and the health care system, and they do coexist. More research is needed to look at the relationship between these conditions in addition to epidemiology, symptomatology, evaluation, and treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".