Active and Passive Components of Pelvic Floor Muscle Tone in Women with Provoked Vestibulodynia: A Perspective Based on a Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Pelvic floor muscle (PFM) dysfunctions, especially elevated tone or tension, are suggested to play an important role in the pathophysiology of provoked vestibulodynia (PVD). However, the involvement of the PFMs remains misunderstood as the assessment of muscle tone is complex and requires a thorough understanding of muscle physiology in relation to the characteristics and limitations of current PFM assessment tools. The aim of this review was to describe the structures and mechanisms involved in muscle tone in normally innervated muscle, and to discuss and relate these concepts to the PFM findings in women with PVD. METHODS: A narrative overview of the literature retrieved from searches of electronic databases and hand searches. RESULTS: Muscle tone in a normally innervated muscle comprises both active (contractile) and passive (viscoelastic) components. Current methods for evaluating PFM tone such as digital palpation, ultrasound imaging, pressure perineometry, dynamometry, and electromyography may evaluate different components. Research findings suggestive of PFM hypertonicity in women with PVD include elevated general PFM tone, changes in viscoelastic properties, and at least in some women, abnormal increases in electrogenic activity. CONCLUSION: There is a growing body of evidence to support the involvement of PFM hypertonicity in the pathophysiology of PVD. Limitations of the instruments as well as their properties should be considered when evaluating PFM tone in order to obtain better insight into which component of PFM tone is assessed. Future research is required for further investigating the underlying mechanisms of PFM hypertonicity, and studying the specific effects of physiotherapeutic interventions on PFM tone in women with PVD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".