Female Sexual Function and Pelvic Floor Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the hypothesis that pelvic floor disorders are associated with female sexual problems, independently of other related factors. METHODS: The study population included 301 adult women seeking outpatient gynecologic and urogynecologic care. Pelvic floor disorders were assessed with the Pelvic Floor Disorders Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and the pelvic organ prolapse quantification examination. Sexual function was assessed with the Personal Experiences Questionnaire. Using ordinal regression analysis, we identified characteristics and conditions associated with decreased libido, infrequent orgasm, decreased arousal, and dyspareunia. RESULTS: Sexual function was poorer among 78 women (26%) without a current sexual partner than among 223 with a partner (P<.01). Among the 223 with a current partner, women with a high Pelvic Floor Disorders Inventory score were significantly more likely to report decreased arousal (P<.01), infrequent orgasm (P<.01), and increased dyspareunia (P<.01). A similar pattern was observed for the urinary, colorectal-anal, and prolapse scales of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Inventory, although some associations were marginally significant. Stage III-IV prolapse was significantly associated with infrequent orgasm (P=.02), but other sexual complaints were not more common with increasing prolapse stage. CONCLUSION: Pelvic floor symptoms are significantly associated with reduced sexual arousal, infrequent orgasm, and dyspareunia. We conclude that sexual function is worse in women with symptomatic prolapse but not in women with asymptomatic prolapse. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".