Prevalence of pelvic floor symptoms among Veteran and civilian women participating in a chronic pain program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is expressed as many different pelvic floor symptoms (PFS), including pain. Chronic pain and PFD can affect quality of life. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of PFS among Veteran and civilian women participating in an intensive five-week program for the management of chronic pain. A secondary objective was to compare the frequency of PFS between the two samples because research with the Canadian women Veteran population is limited. Methods: This is a descriptive retrospective study. Initial medical reports and physiotherapy assessments were reviewed. Data were extracted from the medical charts of participants who entered the virtual and in-person programs between January 2021 and December 2023. Results: Fifty charts were reviewed. Only two of the 50 participants were given a PFD diagnosis. Half of the participants self-reported four or more PFS. Stress urinary incontinence and history of hysterectomy were more frequently reported among the Veteran population. Discussion: Multiple PFS were reported by women being treated for chronic pain; however, only a small number were medically diagnosed with PFD. Civilian and Veteran women with chronic pain should be screened for PFD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".