MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W75015319

Prevalence of pelvic musculoskeletal disorders in a female chronic pelvic pain clinic.

2006· article· en· W75015319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank F. Tu, Sawsan As‐Sanie, John F. Steege

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTendernessPalpationPelvic painVisual analogue scalePhysical therapyPelvic floorSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of 2 musculoskeletal pain disorders among women presenting to a referral chronic pelvic pain clinic. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 987 women (aged 14-79) presenting for evaluation from 1993 to 2000 at a university-based gynecologic chronic pelvic pain clinic. RESULTS: At the initial visit, all women completed standardized interviews and underwent a pelvic examination. Single-digit palpation of the levator ani and piriformis muscles was performed intravaginally. Among these women, 212 of 955 (22%) had tenderness of the levator ani muscles, while 128 of 943 (14%) had tenderness of the piriformis muscle (pain score > 3 of 10 on a visual analogue scale). Both levator ani tenderness and piriformis tenderness were associated with a higher total number of pain sites, previous surgery for pelvic pain, Beck Depression Inventory score, McGill Pain Inventory score and pain worsened with bowel movements (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Piriformis and levator ani pain are present in a significant proportion of female chronic pelvic pain patients. Further research into the natural course, diagnosis and treatment of pelvic musculoskeletal pain is needed to determine its true contribution to chronic pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations98
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207