The CLOSER survey: Impact of postmenopausal vaginal discomfort on women and male partners in the UK
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
OBJECTIVE: To understand the physical and emotional impact of postmenopausal vaginal discomfort on relationships between women and their male partners. STUDY DESIGN: In a quantitative, Internet-based survey, 8200 individuals from the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Italy, US and Canada (postmenopausal, married/cohabiting women, aged 55-65 years, who had experienced vaginal discomfort, and male partners of such women) completed a structured questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Results for respondents from the UK (500 men, 500 women), expressed as percentages of women/men describing particular answers, are reported. RESULTS: Avoiding physical intimacy because of vaginal discomfort was reported by 69% of women and 76% of male partners, mainly due to concern about sex being painful (women 63%; men 61%); 18% of women considered vaginal discomfort had created emotional distance between them and their partners. Local estrogen treatment was used by 21% of women, among whom 58% subsequently reported less painful sex. Following such treatment, 33% of women and 30% of male partners reported an improved sex life, while 33% of women and 34% of male partners described becoming emotionally closer. Although 73% of women did not consider enough information about vaginal discomfort to be available, 60% would consult a physician to obtain this. CONCLUSIONS: Although vaginal discomfort has a substantial impact on postmenopausal women and their partners, improvements in sexual and emotional relationships can follow use of local estrogen therapy. Not all women may be aware of therapeutic options; healthcare providers can improve outcomes by more openly communicating and initiating discussion with patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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