(Not) talking about sex: a systematic comparison of sexual impairment in women with systemic sclerosis and other chronic disease samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sexual impairment in women with SSc has received little attention. The objective of this study was to compare levels of sexual impairment in women with SSc with samples of women with medical illnesses for which sexual impairment has been researched more extensively. METHODS: SSc patients completed the Sexual Relationships subscale of the Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale-Self-Report (PAIS-SR). A systematic review was conducted to select comparison samples. Sexual Relationships subscale scores from SSc patients were compared with scores from comparison samples (breast or gynaecological cancer and HIV) using t-tests and Hedges's g to calculate effect sizes. RESULTS: Samples from 138 female SSc patients were analysed (28.3% diffuse; mean age 52.1 +/- 12.3 years; mean time since diagnosis 9.0 +/- 8.3 years). Women with dcSSc (6.1 +/- 4.2) reported significantly greater sexual impairment (P < 0.05) than those with lcSSc (4.4 +/- 4.2), three breast cancer samples (1.8 +/- 0.1, 3.4 +/- 3.9, 1.6 +/- 0.6) and two samples of HIV-positive female patients (4.4 +/- 3.8, 4.5 +/- 3.9). Scores in dcSSc were similar to one sample of HIV-positive women (5.8 +/- 4.1) and gynaecological cancer patients (7.3 +/- 4.3). Scores in lcSSc were significantly higher than two breast cancer samples, similar to one breast cancer sample and two HIV-positive samples, and significantly lower (P < 0.05) than in one HIV sample and gynaecological cancer. CONCLUSION: Women with SSc, particularly those with dcSSc, have high levels of sexual impairment compared with women with other chronic diseases, where sexual function has received greater attention. Further research is needed on sexual function among women with SSc.
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 | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".