Methodologies to elicit and record pudendal somatosensory evoked potentials in adult humans: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to characterize methodologies reported in the literature to elicit and record pudendal somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in human adults. METHODS: We conducted an electronic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL for studies that elicited pudendal SEPs via electrical stimulation and recorded responses though electroencephalography. From included studies, we extracted methodological details of how the SEPs were evoked and recorded. RESULTS: 132 studies were included in our review. The majority of participants were male (n = 6742/8526, 79%). Almost all studies stimulated the dorsal nerve of penis/clitoris. Stimulus parameters varied, with most standardizing stimulus intensity to 2-4x perceptual threshold, pulse duration to 0.1-0.2 ms, and frequency to 3 Hz. The number of stimuli recorded varied by clinical population. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the inconsistencies of pudendal SEP methodology in the literature, with the majority (77%) of publications not reporting enough detail to reasonably replicate their protocol. Most research to date has been conducted in males, highlighting the paucity of female pelvic neurophysiology research. SIGNIFICANCE: We propose a Pudendal SEP Reporting Checklist for adequate reporting of pudendal SEP protocols. Optimal sex- and patient-specific methodologies to investigate all branches of the pudendal nerve need to be established.
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 | 0.015 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".