History of Abuse in Women With Vulvar Pruritus, Vulvodynia, and Asymptomatic Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chronic vulvar pruritus and vulvodynia are common vulvar diseases. The aim of this study was to compare gynecologic and sexual and physical abuse histories from patients with these diagnoses and from healthy controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were self-completed by patients diagnosed with vulvar itch-scratch (n = 93), patients diagnosed with vulvodynia (n = 232), and patients presenting for annual gynecologic examinations (n = 104) at the University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor, MI. RESULTS: Patients who came for annual examinations were less likely to report past gynecologic infections (p < .05) and indicated higher interest in and more frequent sexual activity than the other 2 groups (p = .003). Vulvodynia patients had the highest scores on the McGill Pain Questionnaire (p < .001). Subjects with either vulvar disorder were more likely to self-report a history of gynecologic infections than annual examination controls. Rates of sexual (p = .78) and physical abuse (p = .12) were similar for all 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with vulvar pruritus and vulvodynia report similar rates of sexual and physical abuse.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".