Epidemiologic correlates of antibody response to human papillomavirus among women at low risk of cervical cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A population at low risk for developing cervical cancer in Southern Brazil was studied to identify the main determinants of serological response to human papillomavirus (HPV). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests were performed in 976 women to detect serum IgG antibodies against HPV 16 L1 virus-like particles (VLPs) and HPVs 16, 18, 6 and 11 L1 VLPs as a mixture of antigens. Women with four or more sexual partners were more likely to be seropositive than women with one partner (HPV 16 serology odds ratio [OR]=3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-4.8; HPV 6/11/16/18 serology OR=4.64, 95% CI: 3.0-7.2). HPV DNA and both serological responses were associated. Those positives to HPV 16 serology were twice as likely to have a cytological diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) than seronegatives (OR=2.07; 95% CI: 1.0-4.5, and OR=1.73; 95% CI: 0.8-3.8). Seropositivity to HPV 16 and HPV 6/11/16/18 antigens seem to be better markers of past sexual activity than current HPV infection, and humoral response to HPV 16 or HPV 6/11/16/18 may not be a strong indicator of cervical lesions in populations at low risk for cervical lesions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".