Endometriosis and Sexual Functioning: How Much Do Cognitive and Psycho-Emotional Factors Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women with endometriosis often suffer from genito-pelvic pain. The objective of the present study was to analyze the relationship between cognitive and psycho-emotional factors and sexual functioning of women with endometriosis, comparing women with and without endometriosis. A total of 87 women with endometriosis (EG) and 100 women without endometriosis (CG) completed a socio-demographic questionnaire; the short-form of McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ); the Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI); the Sexual Distress Scale (SDS); the Symptoms Checklist (SCL-90-R); the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20); the Positive and Negative Affects Scale (PANAS); the Sexual Dysfunctional Belief Questionnaire (SDBQ); the Sexual Modes Questionnaire (SMQ); and the Questionnaire of Cognitive Schema Activation in Sexual Context (QCSASC). EG obtained worse scores than CG in SF-MPQ, Pain subscale of FSFI, and SDS. EG reached higher scores than CG on almost all scales of SCL-90-R and lower scores in the "Identifying Feelings" scale of TAS-20. Furthermore, EG reported more negative emotions toward sexuality than CG (PANAS) higher scores on the "Affection Primacy" scale of SDBQ and the "Helpless" sexual cognitive schema of QCSASC than CG. No significant differences were found in SMQ. Sexual health professionals should address psychological, emotional, and cognitive factors since they seem involved in patients' sexual experiences.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".