Correlates of vaginal laxity symptoms in women attending a urogynecology clinic in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of vaginal laxity (VL) and its correlates in a cohort of women attending a urogynecology clinic in a tertiary referral center in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: In this retrospective study, demographic information, clinical characteristics, and POP-Q system measurements for women attending the King Fahad Medical City Urogynecology Clinic (January 2013 to April 2015) were analyzed. Women with and without VL were compared across these variables. RESULTS: Out of 376 women attending the clinic for various reasons, 135 (35.9%) reported VL. VL was more common in younger women (P<0.001). Parity, menopausal status, and diabetes were not associated with this symptom. A history of cesarean delivery was protective (aOR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.90). A bulge symptom and "vaginal wind" were predictors (aOR 3.25; 95% CI, 1.46-7.23 and aOR 15.48; 95% CI, 6.93-34.56, respectively). There was no correlation between VL and POP-Q measurements. VL was not associated with the presence of clinically significant prolapse (stage 2-4), compared with nonsignificant prolapse (stage 0-1) (P=0.869, P=0.152, and P=0.783 for anterior, posterior, and central vaginal compartment, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, VL was common, more prevalent in younger women, and had poorly defined clinical correlates.
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) | 0.001 | 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".