The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) Vulvar Awareness Day Campaign: Knowledge of Vulvovaginal Diseases Among Italian Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to investigate vulvovaginal disease (VVD) awareness in Italian obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn) residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 25-question survey on VVD basic knowledge (17 questions) and willingness to improve it (8 questions) was distributed through Ob/Gyn resident online group chats, from different Italian Universities in January 2023. A total number of 250 residents were invited to participate; 124 responses were obtained (response rate: 50%). Data were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics through REDCap. RESULTS: Overall, 87 of the 124 respondents (70%) fully completed the questionnaire and represented the study group. Residents were distributed among years of residency: 15% first year, 31% second year, 23% third year, 11% fourth year, and 20% fifth year. Most (60%) never attended a VVD clinic during residency, with an increasing percentage of attendance in later residency years (15% at first year vs 65% at fifth).Participants reported low knowledge of vulvar precancerous lesions and vulvoscopy but better knowledge of vaginitis, vulvar self-examination, and lichen sclerosus. Of the respondents, 50% were not satisfied with the education provided during residency, and more than 60% lacked confidence in managing VVD.All participants expressed a strong desire to improve their knowledge and skills, with 100% agreeing that every gynecologist should know the "basics" and 98% wanting to improve their knowledge through webinars (45%), lessons (34%), newsletters, and videos (19%). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate a significant need to improve VVD knowledge among Italian Ob/Gyn residents. Further efforts are necessary to provide information about VVD and comprehensive training programs in Italian Universities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".