Use of Oral Contraceptive Pills and Vulvar Vestibulitis: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vulvar vestibulitis is characterized by superficial pain during intercourse. Exploratory studies have suggested that oral contraceptives (OCs) could be associated with occurrence of vulvar vestibulitis. This 1995-1998 case-control study in Québec, Canada, sought to reassess this association. Included were 138 women with vulvar vestibulitis whose symptoms had appeared in the previous 2 years and 309 age-matched controls who were consulting their physicians for reasons other than gynecologic problems or contraception. Cases and controls were interviewed to obtain a detailed history of OC use and information on potential confounding factors. Relative risks were estimated by using logistic regression. The authors found that 4 percent of cases had never used OCs compared with 17 percent of controls. The relative risk of vulvar vestibulitis was 6.6 (95 percent confidence interval: 2.5, 17.4) for ever users compared with never users. When OCs were first used before age 16 years, the relative risk of vulvar vestibulitis reached 9.3 (95 percent confidence interval: 3.2, 27.2) and increased with duration of OC use up to 2-4 years. The relative risk was higher when the pill used was of high progestogenic, high androgenic, and low estrogenic potency. The possibility that OC use may contribute to the occurrence of vulvar vestibulitis needs to be evaluated carefully.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".