MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739920771 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.06.005

Deep Dyspareunia in Endometriosis: A Proposed Framework Based on Pain Mechanisms and Genito-Pelvic Pain Penetration Disorder

2017· review· en· W2739920771 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometriosisPelvic painMedicineUrologyPhysical therapyGynecologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Endometriosis is a common chronic disease affecting 1 in 10 women of reproductive age, with half of women with endometriosis experiencing deep dyspareunia. A review of research studies on endometriosis indicates a need for a validated question or questionnaire for deep dyspareunia. Moreover, placebo-controlled randomized trials have yet to demonstrate a clear benefit for traditional treatments of endometriosis for the outcome of deep dyspareunia. The reason some patients might not respond to traditional treatments is the multifactorial nature of deep dyspareunia in endometriosis, which can include comorbid conditions (eg, interstitial cystitis and bladder pain syndrome) and central sensitization underlying genito-pelvic pain penetration disorder. In general, there is a lack of a framework that integrates these multifactorial causes to provide a standardized approach to deep dyspareunia in endometriosis. AIM: To propose a clinical framework for deep dyspareunia based on a synthesis of pain mechanisms with genito-pelvic pain penetration disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. METHODS: Narrative review after literature search with the terms (endometriosis AND dyspareunia) OR (dyspareunia AND deep) and after analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Deep dyspareunia presence or absence or deep dyspareunia severity on a numeric rating scale or visual analog scale. RESULTS: Four types of deep dyspareunia are proposed in women with endometriosis: type I that is directly due to endometriosis; type II that is related to a comorbid condition; type III in which genito-pelvic pain penetration disorder is primary; and type IV that is secondary to a combination of types I to III. CONCLUSION: Four types of deep dyspareunia in endometriosis are proposed, which can be used as a framework in research studies and in clinical practice. Research trials could phenotype or stratify patients by each type. The framework also could give rise to more personalized care for patients by targeting appropriate treatments to each deep dyspareunia type. Yong PJ. Deep Dyspareunia in Endometriosis: A Proposed Framework Based on Pain Mechanisms and Genito-Pelvic Pain Penetration Disorder. Sex Med Rev 2017;5:495-507.

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.

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)0.115
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.296 · 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