A Narrative Review of the Vulvar Disease Literature With Images of Women of Color
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the existing literature on vulvar disease in women of color (WOC). METHODS: A narrative review was conducted to assess the literature on vulvar disease in WOC and evaluate the presence of images in this population. The search encompassed PubMed and OVID using relevant terms related to vulvar conditions and various groups of WOC. Case reports, as well as posters were excluded. Books on this topic were searched using these two search engines and Google, as well as the Taubman Health Sciences Library at the University of Michigan. This library contains numerous books on vulvar diseases commonly used by health care providers. RESULTS: This query identified 24 journal publications on vulvar diseases in WOC. Twenty-six books, commonly used by health care providers, were found to have been published with vulvar images of WOC. However, only 1 focused specifically on vulvar diseases in WOC. CONCLUSIONS: There is a notable scarcity of articles and books addressing vulvar conditions specifically in WOC. This gap in literature limits the understanding of how these conditions may uniquely affect this demographic population. Additional research and resources are essential to effectively represent and meet the health needs of WOC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".