MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901753306 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.10.005

Prospective Cohort of Deep Dyspareunia in an Interdisciplinary Setting

2018· article· en· W2901753306 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul J. Yong, Christina Williams, Sonja Bodmer-Roy, Chukwuemeka Ezeigwe, Sean Zhu, Kristina Arion, Kristin Ambacher, Ali Yosef, Fontayne Wong, Heather Noga, Susannah Britnell, Holly Yager, Mohamed A. Bedaiwy, Lori A. Brotto, Arianne Albert, Sarka Lisonkova, Catherine Allaire

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVGH and UBC Hospital FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWomen and Children's Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyMcNemar's testEndometriosisQuality of life (healthcare)CohortPhysical therapyGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Deep dyspareunia is a common symptom in women, including in half of women with endometriosis, but little is known about its response to treatment and predictors of persistent deep dyspareunia over time. AIM: To follow up deep dyspareunia severity over a 1-year prospective cohort at an interdisciplinary center, and to identify baseline predictors of more persistent deep dyspareunia at 1 year. METHODS: Prospective 1-year cohort study at a tertiary referral center for pelvic pain and endometriosis, where a range of interdisciplinary treatments are provided at a single center (surgical, hormonal, physical, and psychological therapies). Exclusion criteria were menopause, age >50 years, and never previously sexually active. Primary outcome (deep dyspareunia severity) and secondary outcome (sexual quality of life) were followed up over 1 year. Ordinal logistic regression was performed, controlling for baseline severity of deep dyspareunia, to identify baseline predictors of deep dyspareunia severity at 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was severity of deep dyspareunia on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0-10), categorized into absent-mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), and severe (7-10); secondary outcome was sexual quality of life measured by the Endometriosis Health Profile-30. RESULTS: 1-year follow-up was obtained for 278 subjects (56% response rate at 1 year; 278/497). Severity of deep dyspareunia improved over the 1 year (McNemar test, P < .0001): the proportion of patients in the severe category decreased from 55.0% to 30.4%, the moderate category remained similar from 17.7% to 25.0%, and the absent-mild category increased from 27.3% to 44.6%. Sexual quality of life also improved (56% to 43% on the sex subscale of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30) (Welch t test, P < .001). On ordinal regression, severity of deep dyspareunia at 1 year was independently associated with younger age (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.91-0.97, P = .008), and with a higher baseline depression score on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.03-1.11, P = .01). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should consider employing an interdisciplinary approach for deep dyspareunia, and screening for and treating depression symptoms in these women. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: Strengths of the study include its prospective nature, and assessment of deep dyspareunia specifically (as opposed to superficial dyspareunia). Limitations include non-randomized design, and the patients lost to follow-up over the 1 year. CONCLUSION: Over 1 year in an interdisciplinary setting, improvements were observed in deep dyspareunia and sexual quality of life, but younger women and those with more severe depression at baseline had more persistent deep dyspareunia at 1 year. Yong PJ, Williams C, Bodmer-Roy S, et al. Prospective Cohort of Deep Dyspareunia in an Interdisciplinary Setting. J Sex Med 2018;15:1765-1775.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207