Effects of Group Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy versus Supportive Sex Education on Sexual Concordance and Sexual Response Among Women with Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low interest in sexual activity and impaired sexual response are among women’s most frequent sexual concerns. Mindfulness-based treatments improve low sexual desire and arousal and associated distress. One theorized mechanism of change is the cultivation of increased mind-body awareness via greater concordance between psychological and physiological components of sexual response. We examined sexual psychophysiology data from 148 cisgender women randomized to receive mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MCBT: n = 70) or supportive sex education (STEP: n = 78) over eight weekly group sessions. Women completed in-lab assessments of subjective, affective, and genital sexual responses to an erotic film pre- and post-treatment, and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Both groups showed positive changes in sexual and affective responses, but these were generally more pronounced for MBCT. MCBT increased sexual concordance to a greater degree, and gains in sexual concordance predicted improvements in sexual distress throughout treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".