2015 ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS Consensus Terminology and Classification of Persistent Vulvar Pain and Vulvodynia
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
INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the Executive Council of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the Boards of Directors of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health (ISSWSH), and the International Pelvic Pain Society (IPPS) acknowledged the need to revise the current terminology of vulvar pain, based on the significant increase in high quality etiologic studies published in the last decade. METHODS: The new terminology was achieved in four steps. The first involved a terminology consensus conference with representatives of the three societies, held in April 2015. Then, an analysis of the relevant published studies was used to establish a level of evidence for each factor associated with vulvodynia. The terminology was amended based on feedback from members of the societies. Finally, each society's board accepted the new terminology. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In 2015, the ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS adopted a new vulvar pain and vulvodynia terminology that acknowledges the complexity of the clinical presentation and pathophysiology involved in vulvar pain and vulvodynia, and incorporates new information derived from evidence-based studies conducted since the last terminology published in 2003.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it