Pudendal somatosensory evoked potentials – A standardized assessment for males and females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To evaluate configuration- and sex-related differences in pudendal somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) waveform characteristics, tolerability, response stability, and test–retest reliability in healthy adults. Methods Pudendal SEPs were recorded from forty-two able-bodied adults (20 females, 22 males) across multiple electrode configurations that varied in anode-cathode placement for both sexes, and in laterality (unilateral and bilateral) for females only. Tibial SEPs were also recorded as a reference control. Peak-to-peak amplitudes were compared across configurations and between sexes and nerves using linear mixed-effects models. SEP latency was summarized descriptively. Tolerability (self-reported 1–10 Likert scale) was analyzed with cumulative link mixed models. Peak-to-peak amplitude stability was computed from exponential fits of cumulative averages and compared across configurations and nerves. Test–retest reliability for SEP latency and peak-to-peak amplitudes was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman analyses. Results Electrode configuration had no effect on peak-to-peak amplitude in females or males, and no sex-based amplitude differences were observed. Tolerability varied significantly by configuration, where the configuration with the clitoral cathode and bilateral anodes was rated least tolerable in females, and the configuration with the anode on the glans and the cathode on the proximal shaft was least tolerable in males. Tibial nerve stimulation was consistently rated as more tolerable than pudendal, with a larger difference observed in females. On average, pudendal SEP amplitudes stabilized at 282 stimuli in females and 324 in males, with no differences across configurations nor compared to tibial SEPs. Test–retest analyses showed no systematic bias and revealed moderate-to-good reliability, with latency measures demonstrating greater reproducibility than peak-to-peak amplitudes. Conclusions Pudendal SEP amplitudes and response stability were robust to electrode configuration, but tolerability differed across configurations, highlighting the need to consider electrode placement when designing protocols to improve participant comfort. Test–retest analyses demonstrated moderate-to-good reproducibility, particularly for latency measures, supporting the reliability of pudendal SEPs for longitudinal or repeated assessments. Significance These findings establish the feasibility and reliability of pudendal SEPs in healthy adults and provide guidance for optimizing stimulation locations in future research.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".