Human Papillomavirus Vaccination for Men: Advancing Policy and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV4) is safe and highly efficacious, and can significantly reduce the burden of HPV-related genital warts and cancers among men, in addition to promoting herd immunity. Nevertheless, HPV4 coverage among boys remains low in most settings. Research to date has focused predominantly on HPV vaccination of girls to prevent cervical cancer. Most countries with publicly funded healthcare where HPV4 is licensed cover the costs of HPV vaccination programs for girls only. We critically review the evidence for extending publicly funded HPV vaccination programs to boys in addition to girls. After an overview of research on HPV prevalence and associated cancers among men, we review cost–effectiveness studies, benefits of universal versus targeted vaccination approaches and multifaceted health equity concerns, along with directions in vaccine delivery programs and intervention research to promote HPV vaccine uptake for boys. Comprehensive evaluation of the systematic exclusion of boys from publicly financed HPV vaccination programs is warranted given tremendous public health implications of new infections and subsequent cancers that could have otherwise been averted.
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 | 0.040 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".