MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2931701384 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.12.007

Deep Dyspareunia: Review of Pathophysiology and Proposed Future Research Priorities

2019· review· en· W2931701384 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

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicinePelvic painEtiologyPelvic floorVulvodyniaEndometriosisSexual dysfunctionGynecologyPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Dyspareunia has been traditionally divided into superficial (introital) dyspareunia and deep dyspareunia (pain with deep penetration). While deep dyspareunia can coexist with a variety of conditions, recent work in endometriosis has demonstrated that coexistence does not necessarily imply causation. Therefore, a reconsideration of the literature is required to clarify the pathophysiology of deep dyspareunia. AIMS: To review the pathophysiology of deep dyspareunia, and to propose future research priorities. METHODS: A narrative review after appraisal of published frameworks and literature search with the terms (dyspareunia AND endometriosis), (dyspareunia AND deep), (dyspareunia AND (pathophysiology OR etiology)). MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: Deep dyspareunia (present/absent or along a pain severity scale). RESULTS: The narrative review demonstrates potential etiologies for deep dyspareunia, including gynecologic-, urologic-, gastrointestinal-, nervous system-, psychological-, and musculoskeletal system-related disorders. These etiologies can be classified according to anatomic mechanism, such as contact with a tender pouch of Douglas, uterus-cervix, bladder, or pelvic floor, with deep penetration. Etiologies of deep dyspareunia can also be stratified into 4 categories, as previously proposed for endometriosis specifically, to personalize management: type I (primarily gynecologic), type II (nongynecologic comorbid conditions), type III (central sensitization and genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder), and type IV (mixed). We also identified gaps in the literature, such as lack of a validated patient-reported questionnaire or an objective measurement tool for deep dyspareunia and clinical trials not powered for sexual outcomes. CONCLUSION: We propose the following research priorities for deep dyspareunia: deep dyspareunia measurement tools, inclusion of the population avoiding intercourse due to deep dyspareunia, nongynecologic conditions in the generation of deep dyspareunia, exploration of sociocultural factors, clinical trials with adequate power for deep dyspareunia outcomes, partner variables, female sexual response, pathways between psychological factors and deep dyspareunia, and personalized approaches to deep dyspareunia. Orr N, Wahl K, Joannou A, et al. Deep Dyspareunia: Review of Pathophysiology and Proposed Future Research Priorities. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:3-17.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.266 · 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