Innervation of the human vulvar vestibule: A comprehensive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain of the vulvar vestibule, including provoked vestibulodynia, is prevalent among women, yet challenging to treat due to its multifactorial etiology. Recent evidence indicates a neuroproliferative subtype in which hypersensitivity of the vulvar vestibule is due, in part, to hyperinnervation. Detailed knowledge regarding the innervation of the vulvar vestibule is crucial to understanding and treating pain conditions impacting this region. The purpose of this review is to consolidate the current evidence regarding the innervation of the human vulvar vestibule and discuss the implications of this innervation for pathological conditions affecting this tissue. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using keywords including vulvar vestibule, innervation, and vestibulodynia to identify articles concerning the innervation of the vulvar vestibule. Fifteen studies published between 1998 and 2017 were reviewed. Evidence from immunohistochemical investigations support that the vulvar vestibule has nociceptive, mechanosensory, sympathetic, and parasympathetic innervation. In pathological samples, hyperinnervation supports the neuroproliferative etiology of provoked vestibulodynia. Additionally, there is some evidence supporting the role of the pudendal nerve in vulvar vestibule innervation, although no cadaveric studies have been reported to date. Progress has been made in our understanding of the innervation of the vulvar vestibule, though further research into the origin of sensory and autonomic innervation of this region is needed. Advancing the knowledge of vulvar vestibule innervation is crucial towards improving our understanding of the function of this tissue, in addition to informing the etiology and management of pain syndromes impacting this region.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".