Brain responses to vestibular pain and its anticipation in women with Genito-Pelvic Pain/Penetration Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In DSM-5, pain-related fear during anticipation of vaginal penetration is a diagnostic criterion of Genito-Pelvic Pain/Penetration Disorder (GPPPD). We aimed to investigate subjective and brain responses during anticipatory fear and subsequent induction of vestibular pain in women with GPPPD. METHODS: Women with GPPPD (n = 18) and age-matched healthy controls (HC) (n = 15) underwent fMRI scanning during vestibular pain induction at individually titrated pain threshold after a cued anticipation period. (Pain-related) fear and anxiety traits were measured with questionnaires prior to scanning, and anticipatory fear and pain intensity were rated during scanning using visual analog scales. RESULTS: Women with GPPPD reported significantly higher levels of anticipatory fear and pain intensity. During anticipation and pain induction they had stronger and more extensive brain responses in regions involved in cognitive and affective aspects of pain perception, but the group difference did not reach significance for the anticipation condition. Pain-related fear and anxiety traits as well as anticipatory fear ratings were positively associated with pain ratings in GPPPD, but not in HC. Further, in HC, a negative association was found between anticipatory fear ratings and brain responses in regions involved in cognitive and affective aspects of pain perception, but not in women with GPPPD. CONCLUSIONS: Women with GPPPD are characterized by increased subjective and brain responses to vestibular pain and, to a lesser extent, its anticipation, with fear and anxiety associated with responses to pain, supporting the introduction of anticipatory fear as a criterion of GPPPD in DSM-5.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".