Evaluation of the acceptability of intravaginal prasterone ovule administration using an applicator
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study is to evaluate the acceptability of the intravaginal administration of ovules/suppositories of DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone, prasterone) for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) in women with moderate to severe dyspareunia who were administered daily for 12 weeks intravaginal 0.50% (6.5 mg) DHEA or placebo. There were a total of 373 women in the per-protocol population who responded to the questionnaire for both treatment groups. While it was planned that the applicator would be evaluated as suitable if at least 80% of participants have a global score ≤ 2 units, 99% and 100% of participants had a score ≤ 2 units in the placebo and DHEA groups, respectively, for the global score (mean of 5 questions). When asked about like and dislike the technique of drug administration, 284 comments were positive, while 114 women gave no comment. About 92-94% of women indicated that they were very confident to be able use the applicator successfully in the future. The survey shows a high degree of satisfaction and of confidence to use the applicator successfully in the future.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it