Questionnaires for Assessment of Female Sexual Dysfunction: A Review and Proposal for a Standardized Screener
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are many methods to evaluate female sexual function and dysfunction (FSD) in clinical and research settings, including questionnaires, structured interviews, and detailed case histories. Of these, questionnaires have become an easy first choice to screen individuals into different categories of FSD. AIM: The aim of this study was to review the strengths and weaknesses of different questionnaires currently available to assess different dimensions of women's sexual function and dysfunction, and to suggest a simple screener for FSD. METHODS: A literature search of relevant databases, books, and articles in journals was used to identify questionnaires that have been used in basic or epidemiological research, clinical trials, or in clinical settings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Measures were grouped in four levels based on their purposes and degree of development, and were reviewed for their psychometric properties and utility in clinical or research settings. A Sexual Complaints Screener for Women (SCS-W) was then proposed based on epidemiological methods. RESULTS: Although many questionnaires are adequate for their own purposes, our review revealed a serious lack of standardized, internationally (culturally) acceptable questionnaires that are truly epidemiologically validated in general populations and that can be used to assess FSD in women with or without a partner and independent of the partner's gender. The SCS-W is proposed as a 10-item screener to aid clinicians in making a preliminary assessment of FSD. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of FSD continues to change and basic screening tools are essential to help advance clinical diagnosis and treatment, or to slate patients adequately into the right diagnostic categories for basic and epidemiological research or clinical trials.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it