MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413113385 · doi:10.1097/ajp.0000000000001316

Beyond a Diagnosis

2025· article· en· W4413113385 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Duarte de Menezes, Leandro Alberto Calazans Nogueira, Ney Meziat‐Filho, Felipe José Jandre dos Reis

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the diverse aspects of sexual pain experiences among affected women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an interpretive description qualitative study and collected data using one-to-one semi-structured interviews. Participants were purposefully recruited for one-on-one semi-structured online interviews. Two independent reviewers analyzed the transcripts, and coding was finalized through consensus. RESULTS: The study consisted of 31 women who self-identified as experiencing sexual pain with a mean age of 29 (SD=9.72) years and a mean pain duration of 53 (SD=41.93) months. We identified 6 main themes, including experience of living with pain, beliefs, behavior, search for help, treatments, and expectations. DISCUSSION: This study revealed that sexual pain often begins with the first sexual encounter and may persist, deeply affecting personal and marital well-being. Pain was linked to factors such as trauma and biological dysfunctions. Participants employed various coping strategies and sought multiple treatments, though outcomes and satisfaction levels varied. Key facilitators of effective treatment were professional support and access to information, while significant barriers included shame and financial constraints. Satisfaction with health care largely depended on receiving a diagnosis, with future outlooks varying from hopelessness to optimism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207