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

Etiology, diagnosis, and clinical management of vulvodynia

2014· review· en· W2137115798 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
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