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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".