MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584504316 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.10.071

The “G-Spot” Is Not a Structure Evident on Macroscopic Anatomic Dissection of the Vaginal Wall

2017· article· en· W2584504316 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Hoag, Janet R. Keast, Helen E. O’Connell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsIsland Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissection (medical)AnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists in the literature regarding the presence or absence of an anatomic "G-spot." However, few studies have examined the detailed topographic or histologic anatomy of the putative G-spot location. AIM: To determine the anatomy of the anterior vaginal wall and present detailed, systematic, accessible findings from female cadaveric dissections to provide anatomic clarity with respect to this location. METHODS: Systematic anatomic dissections were performed on 13 female cadavers (32-97 years old, 8 fixed and 5 fresh) to characterize the gross anatomy of the anterior vaginal wall. Digital photography was used to document dissections. Dissection preserved the anterior vaginal wall, urethra, and clitoris. In 9 cadavers, the vaginal epithelial layer was reflected to expose the underlying urethral wall and associated tissues. In 4 cadavers, the vaginal wall was left intact before preservation. Once photographed, 8 specimens were transversely sectioned for macroscopic inspection and histologic examination. OUTCOMES: The presence or absence of a macroscopic anatomic structure at detailed cadaveric pelvis dissection that corresponds to the previously described G-spot and gross anatomic description of the anterior vaginal wall. RESULTS: Deep to the lining epithelium of the anterior vaginal wall is the urethra. There is no macroscopic structure other than the urethra and vaginal wall lining in the location of the putative G-spot. Specifically, there is no apparent erectile or "spongy" tissue in the anterior vaginal wall, except where the urethra abuts the clitoris distally. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The absence of an anatomic structure corresponding to the putative G-spot helps clarify the controversy on this subject. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Limitations to this study include limited access to specimens immediately after death and potential for observational bias. In addition, age, medical history, and cause of death are not publishable for privacy reasons. However, it is one of the most thorough and complete anatomic evaluations documenting the anatomic detail of the anterior vaginal wall. CONCLUSION: The G-spot, in its current description, is not identified as a discrete anatomic entity at macroscopic dissection of the urethra or vaginal wall. Further insights could be provided by histologic study. Hoag N, Keast JR, O'Connell HE. The "G-Spot" Is Not a Structure Evident on Macroscopic Anatomic Dissection of the Vaginal Wall. J Sex Med 2017;14:1524-1532.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207