Safety and reactogenicity of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, 18) L1 viral-like-particle vaccine in older adolescents and young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic vaccination with a quadrivalent HPV (types 6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine (qHPV) has been shown to prevent infection with HPV 6/11/16/18 and associated disease in women and more recently, in men. Here we report on the safety and reactogenicity of the qHPV vaccine in males. A total of 4,065 healthy males aged 16-26 years were enrolled into a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive qHPV vaccine or placebo at day 1, month 2, and month 6. Safety and tolerability were assessed via the collection of reported adverse experiences (AEs). All serious AEs (vaccine- or procedure-related or not) and all deaths occurring during the study were recorded. Safety analyses were conducted in all subjects who received at least one dose of vaccine or placebo. The proportion of subjects who reported at least one injection-site AE was higher in the qHPV vaccine group versus the placebo group (60.1% vs 53.7%, respectively), however most of these AEs were mild/moderate in intensity. The incidence of at least one systemic AE was comparable between the vaccine and placebo groups (31.7% vs 31.4%, respectively). There were no vaccine-related serious AEs or deaths. The occurrence of AEs did not increase with each successive injection, and among trial participants who were seropositive for at least one vaccine HPV type at enrollment, the profile of adverse events was similar to that of the entire study cohort. The qHPV vaccine was generally well tolerated in males aged 16-26 years and had a favorable safety profile.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".