Bibliographic record
Abstract
### What you need to know A 45 year old woman presents to her general practitioner with a five year history of painful sex. This had been so severe she has been unable to have intercourse for two years. She complains of being dry and tight, despite using oestrogen vaginal pessaries. She had one child 10 years ago, delivered by caesarean section. She recalled a midwife commenting her vagina was too small during labour. On further questioning she revealed that the problem had become much worse since her husband lost his job three years ago. She expresses concern about the toll this problem is taking on her marriage, and becomes tearful. Dyspareunia is a common but poorly understood problem affecting around 7.5% of sexually active women aged 16-74 years.1 It describes persistent or recurrent pain with attempted or complete vaginal entry or penile-vaginal intercourse.2 Understanding whether the pain is superficial or deep can help to identify its cause.3 Dyspareunia is most common in women aged 55-64 years (10.4%) and those aged 16-24 years (9.5%).1 It is an important and neglected area of female health,45 associated with substantial morbidity and distress. Box 1 includes some comments from women who have experienced the symptoms. Box 1 ### Patients’ accounts of dyspareunia Patients’ views collected from an urban psychosexual clinic to illustrate the impact of dyspareunia.RETURN TO TEXT
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.168 | 0.030 |
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".