Genital Sensory Detection Thresholds and Patient Satisfaction with Vaginoplasty in Male-to-Female Transgender Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gender-affirming surgery is common for the treatment of gender dysphoria, but its effect on genital sensitivity is not well known. AIMS: To investigate genital sensory detection thresholds in male-to-female transgender women postoperatively and their relation to psychological well-being and variables of satisfaction. METHODS: Prospective study on 28 transgender women at least 18 years old operated on at least 3 months before the study by a single surgeon (N.M.J.). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical complications; sensory detection thresholds for light touch, pressure, and vibration; and questionnaires on general and sexual satisfaction, sexual function, depression, and psychological well-being. RESULTS: Sensory detection thresholds ranged from 0.07 to 2.82 g for light touch, with the neck being most sensitive; from 20.23 to 34.64 g for pressure, with similar results for the neck and clitoris; and from 0.0052 to 0.0111 V for vibration, with similar findings for all stimulation points. Satisfaction with the appearance of the labia, vulva, clitoris, and sexual function was good to very good. Frequency of sexual activities increased significantly postoperatively for orogenital stimulation and decreased significantly for frequency of fantasies (t = -4.81; P < .0001). Orgasmic function was reported by 80% of participants. Psychological adjustment was good to very good, with low depression scores. Sexual satisfaction was statistically and positively correlated with vaginal function and depth, clitoral sensation, appearance of the vulva and labia minora, and natural lubrication and negatively correlated with depression scores. CONCLUSION: Gender-affirming surgery yields good results for satisfaction with appearance and function. Genital sensitivity showed the best results with pressure and vibration.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".