MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605514634 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.03.093

PS-03-001 Female Sexual Pain and Quality of Sex Life: Preliminary Results of The Italian Protocol “Sexuality and Well-Being”

2017· article· en· W2605514634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Viozzi, Valentina Rossi, Francesca Tripodi, Filippo Maria Nimbi, Chiara Simonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualitySexual lifeProtocol (science)Quality of life (healthcare)PsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyGynecologyGender studiesPsychotherapistAlternative medicineSociologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder (GPPD) has a multifactorial aetiology and is characterized by pain during intercourse. GPPD has been shown to have a negative impact on the psychological well-being and quality of life of affected women. Many cognitive and affective variables may influence the experience of pain and associated psychosexual concerns. However, the consequences on sexual function and satisfaction have been studied very little. The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the sexual sphere of women who report this condition. Data were collected on 377 women (131 with sexual pain in the last 6 months and 246 without sexual pain), aged between 18 and 59 (M = 29.23; SD = 8.10). Participants completed: a socio-demographic questionnaire, FSFI, FSDS, SSS-W, SMQ-W, SDBQ-W, QCSASC-W and McGill Pain Questionnaire. Participants were recruited through snowballs technique. Women with sexual pain totalized worse scores in: sexual functioning (F(1,333)= 23.35; p < .001) and sexual satisfaction (F(1,333)= 6.38; p < .05). They obtained higher scores in personal distress (F(1,333)= 6.38; p < .01) compared to controls. Moreover, they reported a higher frequency of: failure/disengagement (F(1,324)= 9.85; p < .01) and low self body image (F(1,324)= 5.49; p < .05) thoughts, feelings of guilt (F(1,329)= 4.27; p < .05), incompetence (F(1,333)= 6.38; p < .01), difference/loneliness (F(1,327)= 9.03; p < .01) and helpless (F(1,327)= 4.05; p < .05) concerning sexual activity, than women without sexual pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawFrench-language works237,207