MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158868939 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1020174

Women's sexual dysfunction: revised and expanded definitions

2005· review· en· W2158868939 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rosemary Basson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationSexual arousalSexual dysfunctionPsychologyArousalPleasureInterpersonal communicationClinical psychologySexual desireAssociation (psychology)Human sexualityDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acceptance of an evidence-based conceptualization of women's sexual response combining interpersonal, contextual, personal psychological and biological factors has led to recently published recommendations for revision of definitions of women's sexual disorders found in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR). DSM-IV definitions have focused on absence of sexual fantasies and sexual desire prior to sexual activity and arousal, even though the frequency of this type of desire is known to vary greatly among women without sexual complaints. DSM-IV definitions also focus on genital swelling and lubrication, entities known to correlate poorly with subjective sexual arousal and pleasure. The revised definitions consider the many reasons women agree to or instigate sexual activity, and reflect the importance of subjective sexual arousal. The underlying conceptualization of a circular sex-response cycle of overlapping phases in a variable order may facilitate not only the assessment but also the management of dysfunction, the principles of which are briefly recounted.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations483
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207