MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389084134 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad133

Acceptability, reliability, and validity of a vaginal insert for the self-assessment of endometriosis-associated deep dyspareunia: a cross-sectional study

2023· article· en· W4389084134 on OpenAlexaff
R Macleod, Gurkiran Parmar, Sandy Zhang, Heather Noga, Catherine Allaire, Arianne Albert, Ryan Flannigan, Lori A. Brotto, Natasha L. Orr, Kate Wahl, Paul J. Yong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometriosisPelvic floorVaginaTendernessGynecologyObstetricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of people with endometriosis experience deep dyspareunia; however, there is no means of objective self-testing of endometriosis-associated deep dyspareunia. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability, test-retest reliability, and validity of a vaginal insert for a self-assessment of endometriosis-associated deep dyspareunia. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a tertiary endometriosis center. Inclusion criteria were: 19 to 49 years of age, self-reported deep dyspareunia of ≥4 of 10, and surgically confirmed endometriosis. Participants completed 2 self-assessments using the vaginal insert to self-assess tenderness at the right and left pelvic floor, bladder, cervix-uterus, and posterior cul-de-sac (vaginal fornix). The participants recorded tenderness at each pelvic site and completed a questionnaire regarding the acceptability of the vaginal insert to assess deep dyspareunia. Test-retest reliability was assessed by correlating the tenderness scores between the 2 assessment dates. Over a 4-week period, the participants also recorded deep dyspareunia severity at each penetrative vaginal sex encounter. Validity was assessed by correlating vaginal insert tenderness to deep dyspareunia severity, and also to tenderness reported on a prior gynecologic pelvic examination. OUTCOMES: The main outcome measures were the acceptability index score, tenderness (0-10) at each pelvic site, and prospective deep dyspareunia scores (0-10) over 4 weeks. RESULTS: There were 19 participants (mean age 34 ± 7 years) who completed the study. The majority identified as female (94.7%), heterosexual (89.5%), and white (89.5%). The median acceptability index score was 0.72 (interquartile range, 0.66-0.81). For test-retest reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.79 (P = .001) for the left pelvic floor, 0.82 (P < .001) for the right pelvic floor, 0.54 (P = .07) for the bladder, 0.89 (P < .001) for the cervix-uterus, and 0.77 (P = .003) for the cul-de-sac. The correlation between the highest self-assessed mean tenderness in each participant and self-reported deep dyspareunia over 4 weeks was r = 0.32, but correlations for each pelvic site varied significantly. Tenderness at each site on prior gynecologist pelvic exam was associated with higher self-assessed mean tenderness with the vaginal insert in each participant (effect sizes = 0.42-0.88). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The vaginal insert is acceptable and reliable for the objective self-assessment of endometriosis-associated deep dyspareunia, with initial evidence of validity. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: A strength was the inclusion of participants who were avoiding sexual activity and a limitation was the small sample size. CONCLUSION: Future studies with larger sample sizes are required to further establish the validity of the vaginal insert for the self-assessment of endometriosis-associated deep dyspareunia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207