Addressing the sexual difficulties of pregnancy loss for couples in clinical care and research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have been interested in studying sexual well-being in reproductive contexts—the transition to parenthood, medically assisted reproduction—for almost a decade. It quickly became evident to us that couples face many challenges to their sexual well-being in their journey toward starting a family. One common experience is pregnancy loss—which is experienced by up to 25% of women.1 To our surprise, we found this area to be woefully understudied when it comes to sexual health and well-being. This oversight was all the more surprising given the known mental and physical health implications of pregnancy loss and that sexual health and well-being are generally accepted to be a core aspect of overall health and quality of life. While limited in number, the studies that do exist provide evidence that pregnancy loss is linked with lower sexual function and sexual desire for both couple members (with mixed evidence for decreased sexual desire for individuals who were pregnant) and that individuals report changes to sexuality even years after their losses. Other studies indicate that pregnancy loss is associated with lower sexual intimacy and sexual satisfaction for individuals who were pregnant when a loss occurred and that partners of those who were pregnant report emotional and physiologic challenges to sexual well-being (see Allsop et al.2 for review). However, such studies—only 8 in total besides our own work—focus on those who have had multiple losses (typically ≥3), which happens to only 1% to 5% of couples.3 Moreover, few of these studies included data from both members of a couple, despite the fact that each couple member is substantially affected by pregnancy loss.1 These drawbacks point to a sobering fact: couples and practitioners have little research to help them understand and adjust to their sexual experiences after a pregnancy loss.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".