Vulvar Endometriosis Mimicking as Primary Vulvodynia in a Young Nulliparous Woman: Algorithm of Care Following a Rapid Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endometriosis occurs in 10% of women aged 19 - 45 years. There is a rare incidence of spontaneous vulvar endometriosis, a possible subset of cutaneous endometriosis. Few cases of vulvar endometriosis have been reported in literature and are often related to large lesions. The occult cases of vulvar endometriosis have been identified mistakenly following response to hormone use after being misdiagnosed as intractable primary vulvodynia. With this mis- or delayed diagnosis comes increased psychological distress adding to the burden of disease. This management algorithm following a rapid literature review of cases using recognized databases such as PubMed, Medline, SCOPUS, CINAHL and EMBASE addresses the needs of this group of vulvar endometriosis. Vulvar endometriosis is rare and can present as primary vulvodynia in the young woman. It may mimic vulvodynia or other chronic pelvic pain disorders such as interstitial cystitis leading to conflicting management. However, a strong correlation of vulvar pain or discomfort to her menstrual cycle activity with or without a visible lesion should raise the likelihood of this condition. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2021;10(2):35-39 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo735
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".