PS-08-006 Sexual Dysfunction in Patients with Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain is associated with disability in daily activities but there is paucity of reports regarding prevalence and characteristics of sexual dysfunction (SD) in these patients. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of SD in patients suffering from chronic pain. Patients with chronic pain who agreed to participate in a study on SD were included. They completed questionnaires assessing demographics, pain-intensity, pain qualities (Short-form McGill Pain questionnaire = SF-MPQ), disability (Ostwestry Disability Index = ODI), depression (Beck = BDI) and SD, including the FSFI for women and the IIEF-EF for men. Chi-Square and T-Test for comparisons between sub-groups within the cohort, and Spearman's coefficient test for correlations between pain and SD parameters were used. 404/709 responding patients (58%) reported pain related SD, 249 (61.6%) were men and 155 (38.4%) women. No differences in age, weight, years of marriage, gender and education were found between SD and non-SD patients. In contrast, patients with SD exhibited significantly higher scores in the pain and disability questionnaires [mean ± STD, (median)]; VAS: 70 ± 23 (72) vs 50 ± 27 (47), p < 0.001; SF-MPQ: 16.5 ± 10 (15) vs 12.3 ± 8 (10), p < 0.001; ODI: 23.5 ± 8.6 (24) vs 16.4 ± 8.5 (15), p < 0.001. Patients with SD consumed significantly higher doses of pain medications than those without SD. FSFI was 50.7 (max 90 points) and in men IIEF-15, indicating moderate SD in both genders. In 2 different self-report scales of SD severity, women scored significantly higher than men (73.8 ± 24.2 vs 67.8 ± 22.9; p = 0.024 and 3.1 ± 0.9 vs 2.8 ± 0.9; p = 0.016 respectively). A significant correlation was found between pain intensity and severity of SD (r = 0.349, p < 0.001).
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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".