Long term protection against cervical infection with the human papillomavirus: Review of currently available vaccines
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
Two vaccines against HPV are commercially available: an HPV-16/18 (bivalent) and an HPV-6/11/16/18 (quadrivalent) vaccine. Vaccination programs have been and will be implemented before the full duration of protection is known. Whether booster doses will be required is also unknown at this time. Meanwhile, predictions rely upon phase III studies and mathematical modelling. In a head to head study, the bivalent vaccine induced a higher, more sustained immune response than the quadrivalent vaccine. Immunogenicity of the bivalent vaccine against HPV-16 and HPV-18 has been demonstrated up to 8.4 years. For the quadrivalent vaccine, immunogenicity data up to 5 years show that the immune response against HPV-18 wanes after approximately 4 years. Efficacy against infection and cervical lesions associated with HPV-16/18 has been shown up to 8.4 and 5 years with the bivalent and quadrivalent vaccine, respectively. Cross-protection against non-vaccine types appears stronger with the bivalent vaccine. However, both vaccines may provide sufficient immunogenicity to confer long-term protection. Ongoing monitoring is essential.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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