MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116987690 · doi:10.1111/jsm.12907

Are Primary and Secondary Provoked Vestibulodynia Two Different Entities? A Comparison of Pain, Psychosocial, and Sexual Characteristics

2015· article· en· W2116987690 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Leen Aerts, Sophie Bergeron, Serena Corsini‐Munt, Marc Steben, Myriam Pâquet

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsClinique Paro ExcellenceUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychosocialClinical psychologyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) is suspected to be the most frequent cause of vulvodynia in premenopausal women. Based on the onset of PVD relative to the start of sexual experience, PVD can be divided into primary (PVD1) and secondary PVD (PVD2). Studies comparing these PVD subgroups are inconclusive as to whether differences exist in sexual and psychosocial functioning. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the pain, sexual and psychosocial functioning of a large clinical and community-based sample of premenopausal women with PVD1 and PVD2. METHODS: A total of 269 women (n = 94 PVD1; n = 175 PVD2) completed measures on sociodemographics, pain, sexual, and psychosocial functioning. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dependent variables were the 0-10 pain numerical rating scale, McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire, Female Sexual Function Index, Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction, Beck Depression Inventory-II, Painful Intercourse Self-Efficacy Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Trait Subscale, Ambivalence over Emotional Expression Questionnaire, Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness, Experiences in Close Relationships Scale--Revised, and Dyadic Adjustment Scale-Revised. RESULTS: At first sexual relationship, women with PVD2 were significantly younger than women with PVD1 (P < 0.01). The average relationship duration was significantly longer in women with PVD2 compared with women with PVD1 (P < 0.01). Although women with PVD1 described a significantly longer duration of pain compared with women with PVD2 (P < 0.01), no significant subtype differences were found in pain intensity during intercourse. When controlling for the sociodemographics mentioned earlier, no significant differences were found in sexual, psychological, and relational functioning between the PVD subgroups. Nevertheless, on average, both groups were in the clinical range of sexual dysfunction and reported impaired psychological functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that there are no significant differences in the sexual and psychosocial profiles of women with PVD1 and PVD2. Results suggest that similar psychosocial and sex therapy interventions should be offered to both subgroups of PVD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207