MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107653987 · doi:10.1586/14760584.6.4.511

Prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines: potential for sea change

2007· review· en· W2107653987 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Ferenczy, Eduardo L. Franco

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman papillomavirusVaccinationDiseaseCervixPsychosocialHPV vaccinesHPV infectionClinical trialImmunologyRandomized controlled trialGynecologyIntensive care medicineCancerCervical cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the central cause in the development of anogenital warts, precancers and cancers of uterine cervix, and a major factor in the genesis of other malignancies of the lower anogenital and upper aerodigestive tracts. The burden of disease carries very high medical, financial and psychosocial costs. The role of prophylactic HPV vaccines in reducing the burden of disease is discussed in light of the results of multiple randomized, controlled trials conducted worldwide in thousands of young females. The review discusses some of the issues that are still unknown, with respect to long-term vaccine performance, challenges to be overcome to achieve universal, mass prophylactic HPV vaccination, as well as the potential impact of the vaccines on primary screening for, and management of, HPV-related anogenital infection and disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207