Human Papillomavirus Infections Among Couples in New Sexual Relationships
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
BACKGROUND: No studies have examined human papillomavirus (HPV) infections among couples early in their sexual relationships when transmission is most likely. Our objective was to describe the distribution of HPV infections among recently formed couples, using the partnership as the unit of analysis. METHODS: Women aged 18-24 years attending a university or junior college in Montreal enrolled in a longitudinal study with their new male partners. Self-collected vaginal swabs and clinician-collected swabs from the penis and scrotum were tested for 36 HPV genotypes. Participants self-reported sexual behavior in computerized questionnaires. We analyzed patterns of genital HPV infection in 263 couples using data obtained at enrollment. RESULTS: Couples had engaged in vaginal sex for a median of 3.9 months. HPV was detected in 64% (169/263) of couples. In 41% (109/263), both partners harbored the same HPV type-nearly 4 times more than expected if HPV status of partners were uncorrelated. There were 583 type-specific HPV infections among 169 couples for whom at least one partner was infected. Of these, 42% were of the same type for both partners (95% confidence interval = 36%-47%). This rose from 25% among those engaging in vaginal sex for less than 2 months to 68% among those at 5 to 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although HPV is common, detection of the same type in persons initiating a sex relationship would be rare given type-specific prevalence rates. The high degree of concordance we found suggests a high probability of transmission.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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