Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection Among HIV-Seronegative Men Who Have Sex With Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the baseline prevalence of penile, scrotal, perineal/perianal, and intra-anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seronegative men who have sex with men (MSM). METHODS: Data were analyzed from 602 MSM aged 16-27 years with ≤ 5 lifetime sexual partners. Serum samples were tested for antibodies to HPV6/11/16/18. Swab samples were collected separately from several anogenital areas for detection of HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59 DNA. RESULTS: The prevalence of any tested HPV type was 18.5% at the penis, 17.1% at the scrotum, 33.0% at the perineal/perianal region, 42.4% in the anal canal, and 48.0% at any site. Overall, 415 MSM (69.7%) were negative to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 at enrollment by both serology and DNA detection. Men residing in Europe and Latin America had significantly increased risk of HPV infection at external genital sites and the anal canal compared to men from Australia. Tobacco use and greater number of lifetime sexual partners was associated with higher HPV infection prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of HPV infection is high among young sexually active MSM, with the anal canal being the most common site of infection. Lifetime number of sexual partners was the most important modifiable risk factor for anogenital HPV infection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".