Sexual communication mediates cognitive–behavioral couple therapy outcomes: A randomized clinical trial for provoked vestibulodynia.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 55). Outcome measures (sexual satisfaction, function, and distress) were collected at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 6-month follow-up, and in-treatment measures of the mediators were taken at Weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12 of treatment. Results showed that affected women's reports of improving collaborative communication mediated the effect of CBCT, but not lidocaine, on post-treatment sexual satisfaction (women with PVD and partners), sexual function (women with PVD), and sexual distress (women with PVD). For partners, collaborative communication improved equally in both treatments. Given that there were no differences in negative SCPs between the CBCT and lidocaine conditions, it was not possible to examine negative communication as a potential mediator. From the perspective of women with PVD, CBCT helped couples communicate about their sexual problems in more collaborative ways, which was in turn beneficial for improving the sexual well-being of both members of the couple. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it