The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health Process of Care for the Identification of Sexual Concerns and Problems in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual problems are common in women of all ages. Despite their frequency and impact, female sexual dysfunctions (FSDs) are often unrecognized and untreated in clinical settings. In response, the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health convened a multidisciplinary, international expert panel to develop a process of care (POC) that outlines recommendations for identification of sexual problems in women. This POC describes core and advanced competencies in FSD for clinicians who are not sexual medicine specialists and serve as caregivers of women and, therefore, is useful for clinicians with any level of competence in sexual medicine. The POC begins with the expectation of universal screening for sexual concerns, proceeds with a 4-step model (eliciting the story, naming/reframing attention to the problem, empathic witnessing of the patient's distress and the problem's impact, and referral or assessment and treatment) that accommodates all levels of engagement, and delineates a process for referral when patients' needs exceed clinician expertise. Distressing problems related to desire, arousal, and orgasm affect 12% of women across the lifespan. Low desire is the most common sexual problem, but sexual pain and other less common disorders of arousal and orgasm are also seen in clinical practice. Screening is best initiated by a ubiquity statement that assures the patient that sexual concerns are common and can be revealed. Patient-centered communication skills facilitate and optimize the discussion. The goal of the POC is to provide guidance to clinicians regarding screening, education, management, and referral for women with sexual problems.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".