A cost‐effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination of boys for the prevention of oropharyngeal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many western countries have established female human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs for the prevention of cervical cancer. The quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV4) has proven efficacy against additional HPV-related disease in both sexes, but the cost effectiveness of male HPV vaccination remains controversial. To assess the cost effectiveness of male HPV vaccination in Canada with respect to oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), the authors performed a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: After an extensive literature review regarding HPV-related OPC in Canadian males, health care costs and clinical effectiveness estimates were obtained. A Markov model was used to compare the potential costs and effectiveness of HPV4 versus no vaccination among boys aged 12 years. A theoretical cohort based on a Canadian population of 192,940 boys aged 12 years in 2012 was assumed to apply the model. A 3-month cycle length was used with a "lifetime" time horizon. The outcome of the analysis was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were conducted on variables, including the vaccine uptake rate and vaccine efficacy. RESULTS: Assuming 99% vaccine efficacy and 70% uptake, HPV4 produced 0.05 more QALYs and saved $145 Canadian dollars (CAD) per individual compared with no vaccine (QALYs and costs were discounted at 5% per year). Assuming 50% vaccine efficacy and 50% uptake, HPV4 produced 0.023 more QALYs and saved $42 CAD. The results indicated that HPV4 in males may potentially save between $8 and $28 million CAD for the theoretical cohort of 192,940 over its lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this model, HPV vaccination for boys aged 12 years may be a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of OPC in Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".