MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137115798 · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s37660

Etiology, diagnosis, and clinical management of vulvodynia

2014· review· en· W2137115798 on OpenAlexaff
Leslie Sadownik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Women s Health · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulvodyniaEtiologyMedicineDistressPelvic painAffect (linguistics)Chronic painPsychosocialPhysical therapyPsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic vulvar pain or discomfort for which no obvious etiology can be found, ie, vulvodynia, can affect up to 16% of women. It may affect girls and women across all age groups and ethnicities. Vulvodynia is a significant burden to society, the health care system, the affected woman, and her intimate partner. The etiology is multifactorial and may involve local injury or inflammation, and peripheral and or central sensitization of the nervous system. An approach to the diagnosis and management of a woman presenting with chronic vulvar pain should address the biological, psychological, and social/interpersonal factors that contribute to her illness. The gynecologist has a key role in excluding other causes for vulvar pain, screening for psychosexual and pelvic floor dysfunction, and collaborating with other health care providers to manage a woman's pain. An important component of treatment is patient education regarding the pathogenesis of the pain and the negative impact of experiencing pain on a woman's overall quality of life. An individualized, holistic, and often multidisciplinary approach is needed to effectively manage the woman's pain and pain-related distress.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations144
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Women s HealthSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207