The Impact of Anogenital Warts on Health-Related Quality of Life: A 6-Month Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The burden of anogenital warts will be a determining factor when making decisions about the type of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to be used (bivalent or quadrivalent) and whether to vaccinate males. We conducted a multicenter prospective study to (1) describe the impact of anogenital warts on quality of life and (2) estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) lost due to anogenital warts. METHODS: Between September 2006 and February 2008, 272 patients with a first or recurrent episode of anogenital warts were recruited from the clinical practices of 42 physicians across Canada. Quality of life was measured at recruitment, and 2 and 6 months later with the EuroQol, Short Form-12, short Spielberg State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and HPV impact profile. The duration of an episode and QALYs lost due to anogenital warts were estimated among 51 incident cases recruited within 90 days of disease onset. RESULTS: Anogenital warts had a significant impact on the quality of life. This negative impact was similar for first and recurrent episodes, and lasted as long as lesions persisted. Anogenital warts had the greatest negative impact on usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression, and on self-image, sexual activity, and partner issues and possible transmission. The median duration of a first anogenital wart episode amongst incident cases was 125 days and resulted in QALYs lost of 0.017 to 0.041, which is equivalent to 6 to 15 days of healthy life lost. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of anogenital warts is substantial and should be considered by physicians and public health officials when making recommendations about HPV vaccination..
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".