P1-S2.69 Prevalence of HPV infections in Metis and First Nations living in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Information on human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence among Aboriginal populations (First Nations, Métis, Inuit) in Canada remains scarce but is needed for informed public health programming. This need is reinforced by the rapidly changing rates of cervical cancer screening in these populations and the introduction of prophylactic vaccines. Method In 2008, 52 clinics across the province of Manitoba, Canada participated in a Pap Week initiative during which left over tissues from conventional Pap tests were used for HPV typing using the Luminex method (developed by the National Microbiology Laboratory). A risk-behaviour survey was also administered to consenting women. Chi-square was used to compare frequencies and logistic regression was used to model the data. The most significant factors were included in the multivariate logistic model. Results Of 592 women recruited, 113 self-reported being Meti or First Nations (M/FN); 70 did not report their ethnic background and were excluded from the analysis. M/FN participants were younger than the non-M/FN participants (mean age: 39 vs 45, p<0.0001). HPV infection prevalence was 2.3 times higher in M/FN than in other participants (32.7% vs 14.2%, p<0.0001). This increase was mainly due to the higher prevalence of HPV 32, 35, 51, 58, and 62. The prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 in the M/FN population was comparable to that of the non-M/FN (p=0.64), although HPV 18 slightly higher in M/FN (5.6% vs 3.8%). Compared to their non-Aboriginal counterparts, M/FN women participating in the study were more often smokers (p<0.0001), had a higher number of sexual partners in the last year (p=0.0004), and were more often in an unstable relationship (p=0.03). The strongest predictors for HPV infection in the study population were the number of sexual partners over the last year (OR 5.71; 95% CI 3.08 to 10.58) and having reported a M/FN identity (OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.69). Conclusion Certain types of HPV may be more prevalent in M/FN than in the non-Aboriginal population. Although it is clear that the HPV vaccine has the potential to lower the prevalence of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 infections and related diseases in the M/FN population living in Manitoba, its impact could be mitigated by the relatively high prevalence of other HPV types.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".