Vulvodynia: Definition, Prevalence, Impact, and Pathophysiological Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vulvodynia constitutes a highly prevalent form of chronic genital pain in women, and current information regarding its definition, prevalence, impact, and pathophysiologic factors involved is needed. AIM: To update the scientific evidence published in 2010 from the Third International Consultation of Sexual Medicine pertaining to the definition, prevalence, impact, and pathophysiologic factors of women's sexual pain. METHODS: An expert committee, as part of the Fourth International Consultation of Sexual Medicine, comprised of researchers and clinicians from biological and social science disciplines, reviewed the scientific evidence on the definition, prevalence, impact, and pathophysiologic factors related to chronic genital pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A review of the definition, prevalence, impact, and pathophysiological factors involved in vulvodynia. RESULTS: Vulvodynia is a prevalent and highly impactful genital pain condition. Numerous factors have been implicated in its development and maintenance. CONCLUSION: What is becoming increasingly apparent is that it likely represents the end point of different factors that can differ from patient to patient. Longitudinal research is needed to shed light on risk factors involved in the expression of vulvodynia, as well as in potential subgroups of affected patients, in order to develop an empirically supported treatment algorithm.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".