Twenty-Year Trends in the Incidence and Prevalence of Diagnosed Anogenital Warts in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A vaccine has recently been licensed in many countries that protects against the human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Types 6 and 11 account for approximately 90% of anogenital warts (AGWs). We describe the 20-year trends in the incidence and prevalence of AGWs in Manitoba, Canada. METHODS: We used linked population-based hospital and physician databases for Manitoba for 1984 to 2004. Cases were identified using tariff (billing) and ICD codes. A case was considered to be incident if it was preceded by a 12-month interval free period of AGWs care. Otherwise, it was deemed to be prevalent. An episode was considered over once a 12-month interval had elapsed without an AGW claim. RESULTS: Approximately 25,000 Manitobans were diagnosed with AGWs between 1985 and 2004. The annual age-standardized incidence rates peaked in 1992 (men, 149.9/100,000; women 170.8/100,000). In recent years, the rates have been increasing again, particularly for men. The male:female incidence rate ratio increased from 0.76 in 1985 to 1.25 in 2004. The highest incidence rate tended to be in those aged 20 to 24 years. Trends in prevalence were similar. Prevalence in 2004 was 165.2/100,000 for men and 128.4/100,000 for women. CONCLUSIONS: These population-based findings suggest that AGWs are a substantial burden to Manitobans and that their pattern has changed over time, with incidence and prevalence becoming higher in men than women. Monitoring the future trends in AGWs will provide an early marker of the effectiveness and duration of protection of human papillomavirus vaccination at a population level.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".