Comparison of Female Sexual Function Index in patients with psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the recent study was to identify and compare the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) of three female populations: those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and healthy individuals. METHODS: In this descriptive correlational study, convenience sampling was used to recruit 50 female RA patients, 36 female PsA patients and 50 healthy women between June and September 2018. RESULTS: The mean ages of the RA patients, PsA patients and healthy controls were, respectively, 53.1 ± 11.8 years, 51.6 ± 13.7 years and 37.4 ± 10.4 years. Controls were significantly younger than RA (p < 0.001) and PsA (p = 0.002) patients. Data including all participants: Based on the total sexual functioning cut-off score of 26.55, 68% of RA patients (34/50), 67% of PsA patients (22/33) and 44% of healthy controls (11/25) met the criteria for sexual dysfunction. Data excluding participants who reported not having had sex in the previous month: Controls had significantly higher FSFI scores than the RA patients across all six domains (p ≤ 0.001) and the overall score (p < 0.001). Controls had significantly higher FSFI scores than the PsA patients across four of the six domains (p ≤ 0.026) and the overall score (p = 0.008). There were no statistically significant differences between the RA and PsA groups. Patient pain, patient global status and Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were not significantly correlated with the total FSFI score in either PsA or RA. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that decreased sexual functioning is more common in women with RA and PsA when compared with controls. All female patients with RA and PsA should be screened for sexual dysfunction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".