Sensory pain characteristics of vulvodynia and their association with nociceptive and neuropathic pain: an online survey pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate self-reported sensory pain scores of women with generalized vulvodynia (GV) and provoked vestibulodynia (PVD), characterize pain phenotypes, and assess feasibility of using the Internet for recruitment and data collection among women with vulvodynia. Methods: Descriptive online survey. Data collected using an online survey accessed via a link on the National Vulvodynia Association web site. Convenience sample, 60 women aged 18 to 45 years (mean = 32.7 ± 5.5); 50 white, 2 black/African American, 4 Hispanic/Latino, and 4 Native American/Alaskan Native, diagnosed with vulvodynia, not in menopause. Pain assessment and medication modules from PAINReportlt. Results: Women with GV (n = 35) compared to PVD (n = 25). Estimated mean pain sites (2.5 ± 1.4 vs 2.2 ± 1.0, P = 0.31), mean current pain (8.7 ± 1.4 vs 5.5 ± 4.0, P = 0.0008), worst pain (8.1 ± 1.8 vs 6.1 ± 3.6, P = 0.02), and least pain in the past 24 hours (4.4 ± 1.8 vs 2.0 ± 2.0, P < 0.0001). Average pain intensity (7.1 ± 1.2 vs 4.6 ± 2.9, P = 0.0003) on a scale of 0 to 10, mean number of neuropathic words (8.3 ± 3.6 vs 7.7 ± 5.0), and mean number of nociceptive words (6.9 ± 4 vs 7.5 ± 4.4). Nineteen (54%) women with GV compared to 9 (38%) with PVD were not satisfied with pain levels. Conclusion: Women with GV reported severe pain, whereas those with PVD reported moderate to severe pain. Pain quality descriptors may aid a clinician's decisions about whether to prescribe adjuvant drugs vs opioids to women with vulvodynia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".