A Systematic Review of Sexual Distress Measures
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
BACKGROUND: Sexual distress is an important component of sexual dysfunction and quality of life and many different measures have been developed for its assessment. AIM: To conduct a literature review of measures for assessing sexual distress and to list, compare, and highlight their characteristics and psychometric properties. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using Scopus and PubMed databases to identify studies that developed and validated measures of sexual distress. The main characteristics and psychometric properties of each measure were extracted and examined. OUTCOMES: Psychometrically validated measures of sexual distress and a summary of relative strengths and limitations. RESULTS: We found 17 different measures for the assessment of sexual distress. 4 were standalone questionnaires and 13 were subscales included in questionnaires that assessed broader constructs. Although 5 measures were developed to assess sexual distress in the general population, most were developed and validated in very specific clinical groups. Most followed adequate steps in the development and validation process and have strong psychometric properties; however, several limitations were identified. CLINICAL TRANSLATION: This literature review offers researchers and clinicians a list of sexual distress measures and relevant characteristics that can be used to select the best assessment tool for their objectives. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: A thorough search procedure was used; however, there is still a chance that relevant articles might have been missed owing to our search methodology and inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: This is a novel and state-of-the-art review of assessment tools for sexual distress that includes valuable information measure selection in the study of sexual distress and sexual dysfunction. Santos-Iglesias P, Mohamed B, Walker LM. A Systematic Review of Sexual Distress Measures. J Sex Med 2018;15:625-644.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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