Descriptors of Vulvodynia: A Multisocietal Definition Consensus (International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, the International Society for the Study of Women Sexual Health, and the International Pelvic Pain Society)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Three scientific societies, the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the International Society for the Study of Women Sexual Health (ISSWSH), and the International Pelvic Pain Society (IPPS) developed the "2015 ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS Consensus Terminology and Classification of Persistent Vulvar Pain and Vulvodynia" (referred to as the "2015 consensus terminology").The terminology included 11 descriptors of vulvodynia. However, the definitions of the descriptors were not included in the 2015 consensus terminology publications. The objective of this article was to provide these definitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ISSVD led a discussion on the definitions for the 11 vulvodynia descriptors, with participation from the ISSWSH and IPPS. The definitions were created through a consensus process. RESULTS: The definitions are described and the rationale for their choice is elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: The definitions of vulvodynia descriptors were determined by a multistaged process of discussion among health care providers with expertise in the pathophysiology, evaluation, and treatment of vulvodynia. The definitions were approved by the ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS. It is recommended that these definitions of vulvodynia descriptors as well as the 2015 consensus terminology be used for the classification of vulvodynia.
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 | 0.066 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".