Assessment of Vulvodynia Symptoms in a Sample of U.S. Women: A Follow-up National Incidence Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual incidence of vulvodynia-like symptoms and evaluate triggers of vulvar pain in a sample of U.S. women. METHODS: After a 1-year interval, women who previously participated in a national vulvodynia prevalence study were recontacted and administered a telephone questionnaire that assessed self-reported vulvodynia-like symptoms and triggers of symptoms. RESULTS: From the original cohort of 425 women, 285 (67%) participated in this follow-up study. Symptoms consistent with vulvodynia occurring within 1 year of initial contact were reported by 4.7% of previously asymptomatic women. Nearly 50% of the original patients again reported a history of vulvodynia-like symptoms, with 68.6% of these as persistent over the past year. Of significance, pain or discomfort with first-time tampon use was 2.15 times more likely (95% CI 1.0-4.62) in symptomatic women. These women were also 2.4 times more likely (95% CI 1.29-4.53) to use a combination of tampons and pads for sanitary protection rather than one method alone. CONCLUSIONS: Over the course of 1 year, as many as 1 in 20 women may experience new-onset chronic genital pain. Despite a higher likelihood of having discomfort or pain with first tampon use, symptomatic women did not exhibit a preference for sanitary napkins. This indicates that lack of tampon use because of pain may not be an effective screening criterion for vulvodynia. We recommend additional studies with symptomatic and diagnosed women to explore in more detail the issues surrounding tampon use history and chronic genital pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".