Current status of human papillomavirus vaccination
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this article, we review the impact of the quadrivalent and bivalent prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines on HPV infection and disease, review alternative vaccine dosing schedules, the vaccination of men and the nine-valent HPV vaccine. RECENT FINDINGS: HPV vaccines have had dramatic impacts on the prevalence of targeted HPV types (6,11,16 and 18), genital warts and precancerous cervical lesions. Population coverage would be facilitated by adopting two-dose schedules, with recent findings that two-dose schedules in young adolescents are as immunogenic as three doses in young adults. Extension of vaccination to men, particularly for men who have sex with men, could further reduce population prevalence of HPV and provide direct protection to men against genital warts and anal, penile and oropharyngeal cancers. The nine-valent HPV vaccine has demonstrated equivalent protection against the four types in the quadrivalent vaccine and high efficacy against the next five commonest causes of cervical cancer (HPV types 31,33,45,52 and 58). If cost-effective, it may extend the spectrum of protection against cervical cancer available through vaccination. SUMMARY: HPV vaccination is an effective strategy for reducing the burden of HPV-related disease. New schedules, target populations and vaccines promise to expand this potential further.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it