MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909469611 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.12.001

What Do Different Measures of Pain Tell Us? A Comparison in Sexually Active Women With Provoked Vestibulodynia

2019· article· en· W2909469611 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVulvodyniaPain catastrophizingPhysical therapyRating scaleMedicineHypervigilanceChronic painClinical psychologyPsychologyPelvic painCognitionPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Studies of pain measurement in women with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) use various methods of capturing pain intensity. The degree to which these different measures of pain correspond with one another is not known. AIM: To compare 3 different measures of pain intensity in sexually active women with PVD participating in a clinical treatment study. METHODS: A total of 64 women (mean age 30.9 years) provided baseline measures of pain intensity using (i) a numeric rating scale that provided a self-report of pain during recalled vaginal penetration; (ii) the pain subscale of the female sexual function index; and (iii) pain elicited with a vulvalgesiometer, an objective method of eliciting pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Correlations among these 3 measures of pain were moderate in size (range r = 0.39-0.61). Moreover, the numeric rating scale of pain was more likely to be associated with self-reported measures of pain catastrophizing and pain hypervigilance than were scores on the pain subscale of the female sexual function index or scores from the vulvalgesiometer. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Overall, there was a moderate level of correlation between different often-used measures of pain in women with PVD. These findings suggest that, in addition to measuring a common dimension, these different measures tap into different aspects of women's experiences with vulvovaginal pain, and researchers should consider how the chosen measure addresses their primary research question when selecting pain measures in future PVD research. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: A strength of this study was the large sample size (n = 64 sexually active women) who had received confirmed clinical diagnoses of PVD. 1 limitation of the findings is that our self-report outcome measures are based on retrospective ratings of pain over 4 weeks, and it is possible that other variables, such as mood, could have impacted scores on these measures. CONCLUSION: This study showed statistically significant and moderate correlations among 3 different pain measures widely used in PVD research and treatment. In addition, only 1 pain measure showed a significant independent association with emotion function measures. These findings provide a rationale for including multiple measures of pain and emotional function in treatment outcome studies of PVD. Wammen Rathenborg FL, Zdaniuk B, Brotto LA. What Do Different Measures of Pain Tell Us? A Comparison in Sexually Active Women With Provoked Vestibulodynia. J Sex Med 2019;16:278-288.

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 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 score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.255 · 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