Contextualizing ovarian pain in the late 19th century — Part 2: Ovarian-based treatments of “hysteria”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The peculiar therapeutic practice of “ovarian compression”—paradoxically, both in initiating and in terminating hysterical activity—remains largely unexplained territory from both historical and medical perspectives. The gynecological indications of “hysteria” and “hystero-epilepsy” are now considered to be among similar questionable indications as contemporaneous “nymphomania” and “epilepsy.” This article analyzes historical clinical observations, as well as surgical experiences of the time, to determine if there has been a uniform understanding of the ovarian contribution to “hystero-epilepsy.” The respective findings are interpreted in light of the physiology of “chronic pelvic pain.” Evidence for pain as a source of hystero-epileptic attacks is further represented through a series of clinical photographs suggesting a link to current problems, such as severe left-lower-quadrant pain. The emerging insights link more clearly to the functional role (le rôle fonctionnel) of the ovaries in relation to the “fits” of hystero-epileptic patients, while validating women’s pain experiences during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Differences in the interpretation of disease concepts between Robert Battey (1828–1895) and Octave Terrillon (1844–1895) thereby permit an understanding of variations in the use of the removal of women’s ovaries for pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".