A Quantitative Analysis of Sleep Quality in Women with Endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Endometriosis is a complex condition that can negatively affect a woman's quality of life, including her sleep. This study aims to assess the multifactorial variables associated with poorer quality of sleep in women with endometriosis. Materials and Methods: Data from the Endometriosis Pelvic Pain Interdisciplinary Cohort (EPPIC) data registry were analyzed for women who underwent surgery at the BC Women's Center for Pelvic Pain and Endometriosis with histopathological confirmation of endometriosis (June 2015 to June 2017). The primary outcome was quality of sleep preoperatively, from the Chronic Pain Sleep Inventory (0–100 VAS). Bivariate analysis and multivariable linear regression were done to determine any significant associations between preoperative patient variables and overall quality of sleep, based on p -value of 0.05. Results: Two hundred and seventy-five women met the study criteria. Poorer overall quality of sleep was independently associated with poorer functional quality of life (EHP-30) (b = −0.18, p = 0.0026), more depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) (b = −1.62, p < 0.001), and painful bladder syndrome (PBS) (b = −5.82, p = 0.035). This indicates that a 1 point increase in the EHP-30 (worsening quality of life), a 1 point increase in the PHQ-9 (worsening depression), and the presence of PBS increased the primary outcome ( i.e ., toward poorer quality of sleep) by 0.18, 1.62, and 5.82 points. Conclusions: Poorer quality of sleep in women with endometriosis is associated with poorer quality of life, more depressive symptoms, and bladder pain. Research into interventions that improve sleep is warranted as part of the management of some women with endometriosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".