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 \ncomplaint could negatively affect the quality of sex life, there is still a lack of awareness about it in the female \npopulation. The objective of the present study was to explore the presence of GSP in reproductive-age \nwomen, the characteristics of pain (duration, location, etiology), the way women deal with the symptom, and \ntheir sexual functioning. \nDesign and Method: 653 women (mean age 25.7±4.37) were recruited with snowball method. Participants \ncompleted a socio-demographic questionnaire, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), the Female Sexual \nFunctioning Index (FSFI), the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS). \nResults: 190 women (29.6%) experienced GSP in the last 6 months (mean duration of the symptom \n16.87±33.75) located in: vaginal introitus and vestibule (52.1%), lower abdomen/pelvis (44.7%), labia \nminora/majora (25.3%), clitoris (8.4%), and perineum/anus (5.3%). Most women (75.3%) did not know the \ncause of the pain, and a quarter of them (24.7%) reported a specific diagnosis. 58 out of 190 (30.5%) \nconsidered GSP as a “sexual problem”. 69 (36.31%) and 50 (26.31%) reached clinical scores on FSFI and \nFSDS, respectively; only13 (7%) referred to a psycho-sexologist. \nConclusions: GSP was present in almost 30% of women, nevertheless just few of them asked help to a \nspecialist. There is still a lack of awareness about pain; cultural aspects may lead women to go on with the \nsymptom 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".