Response and Rebuttal to the Letter to the Editor Re: “The G-Spot Anatomical Structure Spotted”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study was a detailed, systematic, anatomic depiction of the anterior vaginal wall. 1 Hoag N. Keast J.R. O'Connell H.E. “The G-spot” is not a structure evident on macroscopic anatomical dissection of the vaginal wall. J Sex Med. 2017; 14: 1524-1532 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar We presented the anatomy as we observed it. The lateral vaginal wall veins we observed are consistent with structures identified by the author of the Letter to the Editor. These venous structures were not associated with spongy or erectile tissue. These veins drain the spongy tissue of the clitoris, urethra, and the vaginal wall, which are highly vascular structures. The “G-Spot” Is Not a Structure Evident on Macroscopic Anatomic Dissection of the Vaginal WallThe Journal of Sexual MedicineVol. 14Issue 12PreviewControversy exists in the literature regarding the presence or absence of an anatomic “G-spot.” However, few studies have examined the detailed topographic or histologic anatomy of the putative G-spot location. Full-Text PDF The G-Spot Anatomical Structure SpottedThe Journal of Sexual MedicineVol. 15Issue 5PreviewHoag et al1 conducted an anatomic study of the G-spot and failed to identify the existence of its anatomic structure; however, its anatomic structure is visible in Figure 4A of their article. In Figure 4A, the white circle surrounds the deep layer of the vaginal wall, which is described as “lateral vaginal wall veins”; however, missing is a description of the structure within the border of the white circle and beyond. This anatomic structure is a fragment of the G-spot. Figure 4A also depicts the vaginal mucosal and submucosal strata being stretched by the instrument and the deeper stratum (vaginal circular and longitudinal muscles and adventitia) of the same vaginal segment is loose with visible shrinkage, which distorts the appearance of the G-spot’s sac, which resembles a partly banded index finger and consists of ascending and descending arms and the arch between the arms. Full-Text PDF
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".