Myofascial Findings and Psychopathological Factors in Patients with Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) is a common pain condition with psychosocial and somatic symptoms. Myofascial findings and psychiatric comorbidities are frequent. Therefore, the aim of the study was to analyze myofascial and psychosocial aspects. Furthermore, the study focuses on correlations between these aspects and gender differences in this topic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Interdisciplinary outpatient clinic for patients with CPPS at the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. METHODS: Participants underwent a multimodal diagnostic algorithm including physiotherapeutic assessment and psychotherapeutic evaluation. Those with a positive diagnosis of CPPS were included. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize and analyze the sample. Bivariate correlations were calculated for the association between myofascial findings and psychopathological symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 187 patients (56.7% female, mean age ± SD = 49.06 ± 17.05 years) were included. Women had significantly higher numbers of tender (mean ± SD = 17.53 ± 9.58 vs 13.40 ± 8.79, P = 0.003) and trigger points (mean ± SD = 6.23 ± 6.64 vs 4.09 ± 7.15, P = 0.036). They had also significantly higher values in the PHQ-15 (mean ± SD = 11.51 ± 5.24 vs 9.28 ± 5.49, P = 0.009) and the SF-MPQ (mean ± SD = 17.84 ± 8.95 vs 15.11 ± 7.97, P = 0.041). Several significant correlations between myofascial findings and psychosocial factors exist. CONCLUSIONS: There might be a link between psychosomatic and myofascial aspects in CPPS; thus further studies are needed. Nevertheless, the results stress the urgent need of a multimodal treatment including physiotherapy and psychotherapy in these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".