MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620095412 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.04.281

Sex Life in Women with Sexual Pain: A Preliminary Study

2017· article· en· W2620095412 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Viozzi, Valentina Rossi, Francesca Tripodi, Adele Fabrizi, Filippo Maria Nimbi, Chiara Simonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual functionMcGill Pain QuestionnaireClinical psychologyPsychologyOrgasmContext (archaeology)LibidoDistressDysfunctional familySexual intercoursePsychosexual developmentSexual dysfunctionMedicinePsychiatryPopulationDevelopmental psychologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Female sexual pain (FSP) has a multifactorial aetiology and is characterized by pain during intercourse. FSP has been shown to have a negative impact on quality of life of afflicted 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 and 246 without sexual pain), aged between 18 and 59 (M = 29.23; SD = 8.10). The following tests have been administered: a socio-demographic questionnaire, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS), Sexual Satisfaction Scale (SSS-W), Sexual Modes Questionnaire (SMQ-W), Sexual Dysfunctional Beliefs Questionnaire (SDBQ-W), Questionnaire of Cognitive Schema Activation in Sexual Context (QCSASC-W) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (McGILL). Participants were recruited through snowball technique.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207