Analysis of Nociceptive Pain and Related Psychosocial Factors in Women With Endometriosis: A Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore the associations and compare differences in abdominal and lumbar pain pressure thresholds, pelvic floor state, and pain- and movement-related psychosocial factors in women with and without endometriosis. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on women (18-50 years). Participants with endometriosis (EG) were compared to age-matched counterparts without endometriosis (CG). Clinical symptoms were recorded, and pain pressure thresholds (PPT) and pelvic floor muscles (PFM) tone and strength were measured. Psychosocial factors such as catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, sexual function, and health-related quality of life were assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses of covariance were conducted. RESULTS: In total, 46 participants were analyzed (EG: 22; CG: 24). After isolating the effect of the participants' psychosocial factors, statistically significant differences between the groups regarding pain were still observed (P < .05; η2 > 0.14). EG participants had lower PPT in all abdominal and lumbar measurements (P < .05; d > 0.8). Sexual function and quality of life were significantly lower (P < .05; d > 0.8), while catastrophizing and kinesiophobia were significantly higher (P < .05; d ≥ 0.8) in the EG compared to CG. CONCLUSIONS: After isolating the effect of the psychological factors, pain remained a specific symptom of endometriosis. Woman with endometriosis had lower PPT in the lumbar and abdominal muscles, engaged more frequently in catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, and reported significantly lower quality of life. These findings underscore the need for a multidimensional approach that addresses both the physical and psychological aspects of women with endometriosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".