MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210536197 · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s345186

Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women with Endometriosis is Associated with Psychiatric Disorder and Quality of Life Deterioration

2022· article· en· W4210536197 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Women s Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometriosisQuality of life (healthcare)Pelvic painLife qualityChronic painPain disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a condition associated with pelvic pain, infertility, and possibly with decreased quality of life as well as psychiatric disorder. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the association between pain characteristic, psychiatric disorder, and quality of life in women with endometriosis. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was done involving 160 women with medical diagnosis of endometriosis. Pain intensity was evaluated using Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Quality of Life with Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30), and psychologic condition with Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview International Classification of Diseases (Mini-ICD). RESULTS: VAS and psychiatric disorder were associated with higher EHP-30 score (β = 9.3 (95% CI: 7.15-11.45; p < 0.001 and β = 28.51 (95% CI: 20.06-36.05; p < 0.001), respectively) and hence, lower quality of life. The strongest correlation between VAS and EHP-30 was in pain (r=0.586; p<0.001) and 'control and powerlessness' (r = 0.583; p < 0.001). VAS was also higher in subjects with depression (49.5 (25.4-77.8) vs 34.4 (6.1-74.6); p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that severe endometriosis-related pain and the presence of psychiatric disorder were associated with lower quality of life. Comprehensive management of endometriosis is crucial to improve patients' quality of life.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Women s HealthSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207