Cheaper titanium powder used to print auto parts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provoked vulvodynia (PVD) is a chronic vulvar pain condition affecting up to 8.3% of the female population. Despite many years of research, no clear cause for PVD has been identified. Several risk factors have been studied, including vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC). However, to date, the role of Candida infections in PVD has remained unclear. VVC and PVD have an overlap of symptoms that may contribute to diagnostic inaccuracy and mistreatment.To systematically review the literature on the relationship between VVC and PVD.Cohort and case-control studies were included that compared women with PVD with healthy controls with respect to the presence of a history of Candida vulvovaginitis. PVD had to be diagnosed by Friedrich’s criteria or the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease criteria. The inclusion process as well as the quality appraisal of the studies, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, were performed independently by 2 authors.Outcomes of the population-based case-control studies were listed as odds ratio. Outcomes of the pathophysiological studies were based on local pro-inflammatory responses on Candida in vitro.We included a total of 14 studies, both population and clinic-based case-control, and pathophysiological research. 7 studies were of low methodological quality, and 7 studies were of medium methodological quality. The population-based case-control studies showed a significantly increased odds ratio for self-reported VVC in PVD cases compared with controls. The pathophysiological studies revealed a tendency for an increased local proinflammatory response on Candida in vitro in patients with PVD. Owing to the substantial heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not performed.Health care providers may consider a diagnosis of PVD in women with self-reported VVC, and to act on this properly. Reiteration of antifungal prescriptions by physicians without a decent diagnosis, will lead to mistreatment. Women should be informed by their health care provider that intercourse during (or shortly after) the treatment of VVC might worsen the vulnerability of the vulvar skin.This is the first systematic review performed to describe the relation between VVC and PVD. An independently performed in- and exclusion process and quality appraisal, ensured optimal internal validity. However, there were important methodological limitations and the size of heterogeneity prevented establishing a meta-analysis.This systematic review is unable to draw conclusions regarding a relationship between actual VVC and PVD because studies were based on self-reported VVC. Until new evidence becomes available, we advocate that PVD should be considered as an unexplained chronic pain condition. In women with recurrent or persistent VVC-like complaints, physicians should consider a diagnosis of PVD.Leusink P, van de Pasch S, Teunissen D, et al. The Relationship Between Vulvovaginal Candidiasis and Provoked Vulvodynia: A Systematic Review. J Sex Med 2018;15:1310–1321.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.107 | 0.025 |
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".