MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168658880 · doi:10.1258/mi.2009.009011

Menopause, libido and the Internet

2009· letter· en· W2168658880 on OpenAlex
Michael P. Cust

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopause international · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLibidoMenopauseGynecologyThe InternetFamily medicineInternal medicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now nearly 40 years since the Internet was born. It was originally used in 1969 to network university computers in the United States of America. Since then, the introduction of email and the World Wide Web have made the Internet more widely available. Latest statistics suggest that there are nearly 1.5 billion users worldwide. The proportion of the population who are potential Internet users is now over 68% in the UK and over 72% in the USA. Australia achieves almost 80% penetration and Canada almost 85%. With ready access to such enormous numbers of people, researchers have seen the Internet as a potentially useful area for studying various populations. However, with Internet surveys, the problem of bias is difficult to overcome, particularly when the responders to any online survey are self-selected. The potential for bias arises because the Internet population may not be representative of a general population and the participants self-select (volunteer effect). In addition, there is often a low uptake of such surveys on the Internet, which further questions their validity. The use of a checklist for reporting Internet surveys (CHERRIES) has the potential to improve understanding and quality of such reports. By describing how the survey was performed, how the answering population was constituted and how it may differ from a randomly assigned population, we can judge the relevance of any particular report and be aware of potential biases. In this issue of Menopause International, the paper by Cumming et al. looks at the responses of women who accessed the menopause website (menopausematters.co.uk) to a questionnaire about their libido. Over 3000 responses were collected over 38 weeks and their results are reported. In line with other studies, this paper showed that sexual problems in women are common and increase with advancing age. It has been estimated that sexual problems affect one in two women overall. Sexual activity is known to decline with age. The commonest sexual problems reported are low sexual desire (43%), difficulty with vaginal lubrication (39%) and inability to climax (34%). In the paper by Cumming et al., almost 80% of periand postmenopausal women admitted to their libido being affected by the menopause, with most (86%) reporting a worsening, and 81% being distressed by this. Only 27% had discussed their problems with a health-care professional, although this was more common among postmenopausal rather than preor perimenopausal women and in those who were sexually active. Loss of libido is undoubtedly multi-factorial in origin and consequently no single treatment will be helpful for all. In this survey, it was clear that vaginal dryness was a factor in many women’s sexual problems but that they had not sought treatment. Hormone replacement therapy and testosterone replacement were helpful for some women, but not all. This study went on to offer the Brief Profile of Female Sexual Function (B-PFSF) questionnaire to see if women had hypoactive sexual desire disorder and empowered such women to seek help through their health-care provider. As long as account is taken of the selection bias such as in web-based surveys, there is little doubt that they represent a useful way of surveying ‘real people’ and as a tool to guide women with problems to an appropriate source of help.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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