MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004158161 · doi:10.3390/ijerph7020635

When Do Sexual Partnerships Need to Be Accounted for in Transmission Models of Human Papillomavirus?

2010· article· en· W2004158161 on OpenAlexafffund
Heidi Kaastrup Müller, Chris T. Bauch

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsHuman papillomavirusGeneral partnershipTransmission (telecommunications)DemographySexual behaviorSexual transmissionVirologySexual contactMedicinePsychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceBusinessTelecommunicationsSociologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Internal medicineMicrobicide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is often transmitted through sexual partnerships. However, many previous HPV transmission models ignore the existence of partnerships by implicitly assuming that each new sexual contact is made with a different person. Here, we develop a simplified pair model--based on the example of HPV--that explicitly includes sexual partnership formation and dissolution. We show that not including partnerships can potentially result in biased projections of HPV prevalence. However, if transmission rates are calibrated to match empirical pre-vaccine HPV prevalence, the projected prevalence under a vaccination program does not vary significantly, regardless of whether partnerships are included.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.018
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.247
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207