The Aetiology of Sensory Impairment in Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) have reduced vaginal sensation. Vaginal birth has been associated with both sensory nerve injury and prolapse. It is unclear whether the impaired vaginal sensation seen in POP is caused during childbirth or by the prolapsing tissues themselves. METHODS: The objective was to perform to our knowledge the first study to compare vaginal sensation between women with postnatal POP and women without postnatal POP. A prospective cohort study (Canadian task force classification II-2) of 124 primiparous women who underwent Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification examination and neurophysiology at 3 and 6 months postnatally was carried out. Women underwent vibration quantitative sensory testing for Aβ nerve function and stretch quantitative sensory testing for Aα nerve function. POP was defined a priori as the distal-most portion of the vaginal wall at or below the hymen. RESULTS: There was no difference in age or BMI between women with POP and women without POP. Vaginal vibration and stretch sensation were reduced in women with POP compared with controls at 3 months postnatally (p = 0.021 and 0.007 respectively). At 6 months postnatally vibration sensation remained impaired in the POP group, whereas stretch sensation had recovered compared with the control group (p < 0.001 and 0.498 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal sensation was reduced in women with postnatal POP suggesting that childbirth might contribute to the impaired vaginal sensation seen in women with POP in later life. Further work is required to determine if the impairment persists and is the reason for impaired sensory function seen in women with POP in later life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".