An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for the assessment of sexual health of women with pelvic floor dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The terminology in current use for sexual function and dysfunction in women with pelvic floor disorders lacks uniformity, which leads to uncertainty, confusion, and unintended ambiguity. The terminology for the sexual health of women with pelvic floor dysfunction needs to be collated in a clinically-based consensus report. METHODS: This report combines the input of members of the Standardization and Terminology Committees of two International Organizations, the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA), and the International Continence Society (ICS), assisted at intervals by many external referees. Internal and external review was developed to exhaustively examine each definition, with decision-making by collective opinion (consensus). Importantly, this report is not meant to replace, but rather complement current terminology used in other fields for female sexual health and to clarify terms specific to women with pelvic floor dysfunction. RESULTS: A clinically based terminology report for sexual health in women with pelvic floor dysfunction encompassing over 100 separate definitions, has been developed. Key aims have been to make the terminology interpretable by practitioners, trainees, and researchers in female pelvic floor dysfunction. Interval review (5-10 years) is anticipated to keep the document updated and as widely acceptable as possible. CONCLUSION: A consensus-based terminology report for female sexual health in women with pelvic floor dysfunction has been produced aimed at being a significant aid to clinical practice and a stimulus for research.
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 | 0.071 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".