Rossi V., Tripodi F., NIMBI F.M., Simonelli C. (2018). Genital sexual pain in reproductive-age women: an explorative study. 14th Congress of the European Federation of Sexology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Genital Sexual Pain (GSP) is a common symptom in reproductive-age women. Although this complaint could negatively affect the quality of sex life, there is still a lack of awareness about it in the female population. The objective of the present study was to explore the presence of GSP in reproductive-age women, the characteristics of pain (duration, location, etiology), the way women deal with the symptom, and their sexual functioning. Design and Method: 653 women (mean age 25.7±4.37) were recruited with snowball method. Participants completed a socio-demographic questionnaire, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), the Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI), the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS). Results: 190 women (29.6%) experienced GSP in the last 6 months (mean duration of the symptom 16.87±33.75) located in: vaginal introitus and vestibule (52.1%), lower abdomen/pelvis (44.7%), labia minora/majora (25.3%), clitoris (8.4%), and perineum/anus (5.3%). Most women (75.3%) did not know the cause of the pain, and a quarter of them (24.7%) reported a specific diagnosis. 58 out of 190 (30.5%) considered GSP as a “sexual problem”. 69 (36.31%) and 50 (26.31%) reached clinical scores on FSFI and FSDS, respectively; only13 (7%) referred to a psycho-sexologist. Conclusions: GSP was present in almost 30% of women, nevertheless just few of them asked help to a specialist. There is still a lack of awareness about pain; cultural aspects may lead women to go on with the symptom increasing the risk of its chronicization and sexuality impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".