Myofascial Pain Syndrome in Women with Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited information on myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) and specific symptoms of chronic pelvic pain and, more specifically, dysmenorrhea. The objective of this study was to determine whether patients suffering from primary dysmenorrhea present alterations in mechanosensitivity and pain patterns, and greater presence of MTrPs in the abdominal and pelvic floor muscles. A case-control study was carried out with a total sample of 84 participants distributed based on primary dysmenorrhea and contraceptive treatment. The sample was divided into four groups each comprising 21 women. Data on pain, quality of life, and productivity and work absenteeism were collected; three assessments were made in different phases of the menstrual cycle, to report data on pressure pain threshold, MTrP presence, and referred pain areas. One-way ANOVA tests showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.01) between the groups, for the Physical Health domain and the total score of the SF-12 questionnaire, and for all the domains of the McGill questionnaire; but no significant differences were found in the data from the WPAI-GH questionnaire. Statistically significant data (p < 0.01) were found for mechanosensitivity in the abdominal area and limbs, but not for the lumbar assessment, within the group, with very few significant intergroup differences. The frequency of active MTrPs is higher in the groups of women with primary dysmenorrhea and during the menstrual phase, with the prevalence of myofascial trigger points of the iliococcygeus muscle being especially high in all examination groups (>50%) and higher than 70% in women with primary dysmenorrhea, in the menstrual phase, and the internal obturator muscle (100%) in the menstrual phase. Referred pain areas of the pelvic floor muscles increase in women with primary dysmenorrhea.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".