Pelvic floor dysfunctions among people who are LGBTQIA2S+: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to present the current evidence in relation to pelvic floor dysfunctions among people who are LGBTQIA2S+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, 2-spirit, and additional sexual and gender minorities). INTRODUCTION: A significant proportion of people experience pelvic floor dysfunctions, including urinary and fecal incontinence, chronic pelvic pain, or pelvic organ prolapse. Although these conditions can affect the entire population, studies from various health fields suggest that people who are LGBTQIA2S+ are at greater risk of developing some of these problems. This review will help identify research gaps and provide recommendations for future studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles investigating any type of pelvic floor dysfunction among people who are LGBTQIA2S+, regardless of study design, will be included. METHODS: This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Database searches will include PubMed (NIH), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts based on the selection criteria, and in cases of discrepancies, a third reviewer will be consulted to reach a consensus. This process will also be followed for the full-text review of selected articles. A data extraction tool was developed by the research team. Finally, the results will be presented in tables along with a narrative description to summarize findings and highlight research gaps related to pelvic floor dysfunctions among the LGBTQIA2S+ population. REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF https://osf.io/6bsmz/.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".