Differences in Pelvic Morphology Between Women with and Without Provoked Vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pelvic morphology has been suggested to reflect increased tone and reduced strength of the pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) in women with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) compared to healthy controls. We aimed to determine whether there are differences in pelvic morphology in the resting state, on maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), or on maximum effort Valsalva maneuver (MVM) between women with and without PVD. METHODS: While imaged using ultrasound, 38 women with PVD and 39 controls relaxed their PFMs, performed 3 MVCs and performed 3 MVMs. Levator plate length (LPL), levator plate angle (LPA), and anorectal angle (ARA) were determined at rest, at MVC and at MVM. The displacement of the bladder neck (BN) on MVC and on MVM was also determined. Two-way ANCOVAs were used to evaluate the main effects of group and task, the interaction between group and task, and the effect of resting morphology on LPL, LPA, and ARA. A 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to determine whether the groups differed in terms of BN displacement during the tasks. RESULTS: Women with PVD had smaller LPLs and LPAs than controls across all tasks. The significant group differences in LPL and LPA at MVC and MVM were no longer significant once the resting values were included as covariates in the models. Bladder neck displacement differed between the groups at MVM but not at MVC. CONCLUSION: Women with PVD display shorter LPL sand smaller LPAs than controls but their behavior does not differ when MVC and MVMs are performed. Our results do not support the hypothesis that women with PVD demonstrate abnormalities in PFM contractility on MVC or compliance on MVM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".