Type-specific prevalence of human papillomavirus in women screened for cervical cancer in Labrador, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A higher incidence of cervical cancer and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection has been reported in northern Canada and in First Nation, Métis and Inuit women, with some evidence to suggest that the HPV type distribution in these populations may be different from the rest of Canada. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the HPV type prevalence in Labrador women to determine if significant differences in HPV types could reduce the effectiveness of HPV vaccination. DESIGN: The prevalence of HPV types was determined in 1,370 women presenting for routine pap screening in Labrador between February and November 2010. Cervical cytology and HPV genotyping were performed on the same liquid-based cytology specimens. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of HPV was 21.4%; cytological abnormalities were found in 8.8% of the participants. HPV 16 and 18 were the most common high-risk HPV types. These two types were found in 52.4% of high-grade lesions. The prevalence in HPV infections was comparable across the Labrador regions. CONCLUSIONS: The present results support the potential effectiveness of the HPV immunization program in Labrador.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".