Primary and Secondary Provoked Vestibulodynia: A Review of Overlapping and Distinct Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A common subtype of vulvodynia is provoked vestibulodynia (PVD), characterized by severe pain upon contact to the vaginal entrance. Some researchers have further delineated the PVD group based on pain onset (primary vs secondary PVD, referred to as PVD1 and PVD2, respectively). AIM: This study aims to review available evidence regarding sociodemographic variables, pain characteristics, medical history and examination findings, quantitative sensory testing, genetic markers, psychosocial/sexual/relationship function, treatment outcome, and brain imaging in women with PVD1 and PVD2. METHODS: All available data related to PVD1 and PVD2 were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: There is mixed evidence supporting the assumption that women with PVD1 fare worse on all variables investigated. RESULTS: The review indicated that although women with PVD1 seem to fare worse on many variables examined (eg, pain severity, genetic markers), many studies also indicated no significant group differences or-less commonly-that women with PVD2 fare worse on some variables (eg, sexual function). CONCLUSION: Although it has been suggested that different pathophysiologic processes are involved in the development and maintenance of PVD1 and PVD2, the data reviewed were mixed. While most studies indicated that women with PVD1 have higher pain intensity, higher sensitivity, more genetic influence, more evidence of inflammation, lower successful treatment outcomes, and different neural activation patterns and structural findings, these results were not consistently reported. In addition, the data for subgroup differences in psychosocial, sexual, and relationship variables were not convincing. A more precise definition of primary and secondary PVD is needed, and importantly, prospective, longitudinal studies are essential for clarifying any differences within these PVD subgroups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".