Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge of human papillomavirus (HPV) among high school-aged adolescents. METHODS: We administered written surveys to 523 inner-city high school students in Toronto, Canada, that asked about HPV, other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and Papanicolaou testing. We also asked them to report doctor or clinic visits and whether they received sexual health information at those visits. The predictor variables used in analysis were gender and sexual experience. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of our population [95% confidence interval (CI) 84%, 89%) had not heard of HPV. Although adolescent women were more knowledgeable about Papanicolaou testing than adolescent men, only 39% of sexually experienced adolescent women knew who should get a Papanicolaou test. Sexually experienced and inexperienced adolescents failed to identify correctly their STD risk. Both genders showed greater knowledge about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) than other diseases. Among adolescent women, 85% had visited a doctor or clinic within the past year, but only 29% had talked about sexual health. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of HPV infection and cervical cancer screening was low in this urban adolescent population. Improved efforts are needed for prevention of HPV infection and HPV-related cervical changes. Programs modeled after HIV-education programs might be effective. Doctors' offices and clinics providing health care to adolescents should take greater responsibility in sexual health education.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".