Women With Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder Versus Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder: An Empirical Test of Raising the Bar
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was published with a major revision to the sexual dysfunction categories, and the diagnosis of female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) was replaced with female sexual interest/arousal disorder (SIAD). Since being introduced, concern has been expressed that SIAD inappropriately "raises the bar" for diagnosis. To address these concerns, we sought to evaluate the number of women with a diagnosis of HSDD who also met criteria for SIAD. In a sample of 151 women, we found that 73.5% of women with a diagnosis of HSDD met criteria for SIAD. The two groups were compared on the Sexual Interest/Desire Inventory, and women who met criteria for both HSDD and SIAD consistently scored lower on sexual desire frequency and satisfaction, satisfaction with sex, receptivity, positive sexual thoughts, reactions to erotica, arousal frequency, ease, continuation, and orgasm ease/achievement, and higher on distress. In addition, women meeting criteria for HSDD only tended to have mild symptoms across the six SIAD criteria compared to those meeting criteria for both HSDD and SIAD. These findings suggest that the SIAD criteria does not unduly raise the bar for diagnosis.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it