MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002866828 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.12.019

Phenotyping Sexual Pain in Endometriosis Using the Central Sensitization Inventory

2020· article· en· W3002866828 on OpenAlexafffund
Natasha L. Orr, Kate Wahl, Heather Noga, Catherine Allaire, Christina Williams, Mohamed A. Bedaiwy, Arianne Albert, Kelly B. Smith, Paul J. Yong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC StudiesBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicineEndometriosisPelvic painPatient-reported outcomeProspective cohort studyGynecologyObstetricsInternal medicineSurgeryQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Deep dyspareunia, a common symptom in endometriosis, has previously been associated with bladder and/or pelvic floor tenderness (BPFT), which suggests a role for central nervous system sensitization. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI, 0-100) is a validated self-reported scale for patients with central sensitization. AIM: The objective of this study was to phenotype deep dyspareunia using BPFT and the CSI. METHODS: The methods included cross-sectional analysis from a prospective registry from January 2018 to June 2018 at a tertiary center for endometriosis (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02911090). Included were women aged 18-50 years with endometriosis (previously surgically diagnosed, current visualized endometrioma on ultrasound, or current palpable or visualized nodule on ultrasound), who were newly or re-referred to the center. Severity of deep dyspareunia was self-reported using an 11-point numeric rating scale (0 = no pain; 10 = worst pain imaginable), categorized as no or low deep dyspareunia (0-4) and high deep dyspareunia (5-10). We identified the subgroup with high deep dyspareunia and presence of BPFT, where we hypothesized a central component of the sexual pain. This subgroup was compared with 2 other subgroups: no or low deep dyspareunia and high deep dyspareunia but no BPFT. The CSI was compared between the groups using analysis of variance, followed by post hoc testing (P < .05). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was the CSI score ranging from 0 to 100. RESULTS: Data from 163 women with endometriosis were analyzed. The mean age of this cohort was 36.4 ± 6.8 years, and the mean CSI score was 41.0 ± 18.6. 37 percent (61/163) had high deep dyspareunia and BPFT; 29% (47/163) had high deep dyspareunia and no BPFT; and 34% (55/163) had no or low deep dyspareunia. The CSI significantly differed between the 3 groups (analysis of variance: F = 22.4, P < .001). In post hoc testing, the CSI was higher in women with high deep dyspareunia and BPFT (51.3 ± 16.9), compared with women with no or low deep dyspareunia (30.9 ± 15.4, P < .001) and compared with women with high deep dyspareunia but no BPFT (39.4 ± 17.2, P = .001). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The CSI could be used to classify and phenotype patients with endometriosis-associated sexual pain. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: Strengths include a prospective registry with integrated pain scores, validated questionnaires, and physical examination findings. Limitations include the lack of quantitative sensory testing for central sensitization. CONCLUSIONS: In women with endometriosis, the subgroup with high deep dyspareunia and bladder and/or pelvic floor tenderness had a significantly higher score on the CSI than other subgroups, suggesting that this group may have a central component to their sexual pain. Orr NL, Wahl KJ,Noga H, et al. Phenotyping Sexual Pain in Endometriosis Using the Central Sensitization Inventory. J Sex Med 2020;17:761-770.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207