MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414082639 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.70522

Developing the <scp>FIGO</scp> ‐ <scp>IPPS</scp> “R U <scp>MOVVING SOMe</scp> ” classification system for female chronic pelvic pain

2025· article· en· W4414082639 on OpenAlexaff
Georgine Lamvu, Juan Diego Villegas‐Echeverri, Catherine Allaire, Sawsan As‐Sanie, Jorge F. Carrillo, Susan Khalil, Andrew W. Horne, Alexander Wang, Malcolm G. Munro

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodLikert scaleDelphiMultidisciplinary approachPelvic painNominal groupPsychosocialScale (ratio)Nominal group technique

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal was to develop a pragmatic classification system for conditions associated with chronic pelvic pain (CPP), aiming to enhance diagnosis, management, education, and research of CPP. An international, multidisciplinary panel participated in a modified RAND/UCLA Delphi consensus. This panel included healthcare professionals, medical society representatives, experts, individuals with lived experience of pain, advocacy groups, researchers, educators, and journal editors. The Delphi process comprised three rounds: two online surveys and one virtual meeting. Participants scored their agreement with statements using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). A priori criteria for consensus were defined as follows: agreement, a mean score ≥7 with <15% scoring ≤3; disagreement, a mean score ≤3 with <15% scoring ≥7. Responses not meeting these criteria were considered indeterminate and advanced for further refinement in subsequent rounds. In round 1, 65 of 77 (84.4%) stakeholders participated; round 2 consisted of responses from 54 (70.1%) stakeholders, and 34 (44.2%) stakeholders engaged in round 3. The Delphi process yielded broad consensus on the definition of CPP and a corresponding classification system with the acronym R U MOVVING SOMe. This novel system comprises 12 categories: Reproductive, Urinary, Musculoskeletal, Other (not otherwise classified), Vulvovaginal, Vascular, Idiopathic (no pain contributor identified), Neurologic, Gastrointestinal, Sensitization/Nociplastic, Overlapping pain conditions, and Mental health. The R U MOVVING SOMe classification system represents a significant step towards a standardized framework for evaluating CPP. The high level of engagement and consensus among a diverse group of international stakeholders underscores its future potential to improve communication, clinical practice, education, and research in this challenging field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207