Anal Pain and Penetration Cognitions in Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anodyspareunia is described as recurrent and persistent anal pain during receptive anal sex (Rosser et al., 1998), and is a frequently reported sexual problem amongst men who have sex with men (MSM) (Peixoto & Nobre, 2014). Research on female sexual pain suggests that negative penetration cognitions are associated with greater impairment in female sexual and pain outcomes, and positive cognitions about penetration are associated with improved sexual and pain outcomes (Anderson et al., 2016). The role of penetration cognitions in anal pain, however, has yet to be investigated. The current study examined the associations between anal penetration cognitions and sexual well-being outcomes in MSM self-reporting anal pain during receptive penetration. A sample of N = 70 MSM completed online measures assessing anal penetration cognitions, including subscales assessing (a) control cognitions, (b) catastrophic and pain cognitions, (c) negative self-image cognitions, and (d) positive cognitions. Participants also completed measures of the frequency, severity, and distress of their anal pain, sexual satisfaction, and sexual functioning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".