A practical guide to female sexual dysfunction: An evidence-based review for physicians in Canada
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
Introduction: Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is characterized as distress related to sexual pain, sexual arousal, sexual desire, and/or orgasmic dysfunction. Despite prevalence rates similar to male sexual dysfunction, women with sexual complaints have been long under-evaluated, treated, and studied. Over the last decade there have been advances in the medical evaluation and management of FSD, however, there remains a paucity of clinical resources available for women in Canada with sexual dysfunction. Methods: The state of knowledge in the evaluation and treatment of FSD was reviewed. Recommendations are given for the practical evaluation and treatment of women with sexual symptoms that can be applied widely in Canada. Results: Approaches to the management and treatment of FSD are discussed with a focus on the practical application of diagnostic and therapeutic tools in the management of sexual pain, low desire, low arousal, and orgasmic dysfunction. Conclusions: There are evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to FSD that can be broadly applied by Canadian physicians to improve access to female sexual medicine in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it