Profiles of Traumatic Sexuality in Sex Therapy Patients: A Comparison of Interpersonal Trauma History and Sexual Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored profiles of traumatic sexuality (including six sex-related dimensions-dissociation, intrusiveness, shame and guilt, pleasing the other, interpersonal distress, and hypervigilance) and compared differences in sexual well-being and interpersonal trauma among the profiles. A latent profile analysis was performed on a clinical sample of 484 sex therapy patients consulting for sex and relationship related issues. Results identified three distinct profiles: Low Traumatic Sexuality (characterized by low to moderate scores, 87.8% of the sample), High Traumatic Sexuality (marked by elevated scores across all dimensions, 2.5%), and Dissociative-Pleasing Traumatic Sexuality (exhibiting a mixed score pattern, 9.7%). Comparative analyses indicated that these profiles were further distinguished by key variables, such as sexual well-being and interpersonal trauma. These findings underscore the complex ways in which interpersonal trauma shapes sexual experiences, highlighting the importance of individualized therapeutic approaches tailored to address specific trauma histories and support the restoration of healthy sexual functioning and overall well-being.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".