MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979957123 · doi:10.1097/lgt.0000000000000488

The Clinical Utility of the Vulvar Pain Assessment Questionnaire: A Pilot Study

2019· article· en· W2979957123 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Dargie, Caroline F. Pukall, Martha F. Goetsch, Amy Stenson, Catherine M. Leclair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelpfulnessMedicineMedical diagnosisReadabilitySpecialtyFamily medicineHealth carePhysical therapyMEDLINEPathologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to document treatment-seeking experiences of women with chronic vulvar pain, comfort communicating about pain, and test the clinical utility of the screening version of the Vulvar Pain Assessment Questionnaire, screening version (VPAQscreen). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled for an appointment with the Program in Vulvar Health at Oregon Health and Science University were invited to complete the VPAQscreen and answer descriptive questions about previous treatment-seeking experiences and communication with health care providers. Clinicians provided provisional diagnoses based on VPAQscreen summaries, final diagnoses based on gynecological examination, and commented on alignment with clinical observations. Patients gave feedback on the accuracy and helpfulness of the VPAQscreen summary, characteristics of the questions asked, and whether their comfort communicating increased. RESULTS: Participants reported previously seeing approximately 5 medical doctors and 2 other health care providers and perceived them as lacking knowledge of vulvar pain syndromes. Providers indicated that VPAQscreen summaries aligned with clinical presentations and suggested provisional diagnoses with more than 80% accuracy. Participants reported that VPAQscreen summaries were helpful and accurate in summarizing symptoms. Most reported that the number, range, and readability of VPAQscreen questions were good or excellent. More than half reported that completing the VPAQscreen increased comfort when speaking with their Oregon Health and Science University physician. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with vulvar pain often endure a lengthy process of consulting multiple clinicians before securing care. The VPAQscreen was more than 80% accurate in predicting diagnosis at this specialty clinic and was useful in assisting patients with expressing symptoms. The applicability of the VPAQscreen in general practice is unknown, although it shows promise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lower Genital Tract DiseaseSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207