MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119791968 · doi:10.1172/jci30767

HPV vaccine gets a shot in the arm

2006· article· en· W2119791968 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Honey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHPV vaccinesCervical cancerGardasilMeaslesFamily medicineVaccinationMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineLegislationRubellaPromiscuityRubella vaccineVirologyHPV infectionPolitical scienceCancerLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Late September saw the Michigan Senate approve two bills that will require girls in Michigan entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against the two strains of the sexually transmitted virus human papillomavirus (HPV) that cause 70% of all cervical cancers. The two bills, if approved by the State Assembly, will mean that starting in the 2007–2008 school year, parents in Michigan will be the first in the country required to ensure that their daughters have been vaccinated against HPV before entering sixth grade. But, as with legislation mandating other vaccines (such as those against measles and rubella), the bills do allow parents to opt out of the HPV vaccine requirement for medical, moral, or philosophical reasons. This opt-out clause might be used more often than for other mandatory vaccines, as some critics feel that because HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, providing the vaccination to girls before they become sexually active endorses underage sex and promiscuity. However, State Senator Beverley Hammerstrom (R), who sponsored these bills, told the JCI that “Requiring immunizations for school entry has proven to be the single most important health policy enacted in Michigan to ensure that all children, regardless of economic levels, receive vaccines against diseases. Adding the HPV vaccine, which prevents the virus that can cause cervical cancer, is a natural extension to that list of required vaccines.” Also in late September, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) approved Gardasil (produced by Merck), the only HPV vaccine currently available in the United States, for use in the 25 European Union (EU) countries. EMEA approved Gardasil for use in children and adolescents aged 9 to 15 years and in adult females aged 16 to 26 years. This followed the June 2006 FDA approval of Gardasil for use in girls and women aged 9 to 26 years, as well as approval by regulatory agencies in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and New Zealand. As the JCI was going to press, Gardasil was due to be launched in some EU countries at the end of October and in the remaining countries in early 2007. Gardasil not only protects against infection with HPV16 and HPV18, the two strains of HPV that account for 70% of cervical cancer, but also protects against infection with HPV6 and HPV11 — the strains of HPV that cause approximately 90% of external genital warts. By contrast, the vaccine Cervarix, which is being developed by GlaxoSmithKline, only protects against HPV16 and HPV18. Importantly, the clinical trials of both Cervarix (for which GlaxoSmithKline is awaiting EMEA approval and filing for FDA approval) and Gardasil showed that vaccination provided almost 100% protection against the development of HPV16- and HPV18-associated precancerous cervical lesions. The generation of such vaccines has therefore been hailed as “excellent news” by Margaret Stanley, an expert in HPV research at the University of Cambridge (1), and as “one of the most important advances in women’s health in recent years” by Carolyn Runowicz, president of the American Cancer Society (2). Optimal protection against infection with HPV requires a course of three doses of Gardasil, with two months between the first and second doses and four months between the second and third doses. The cost is approximately $120 and €120 per dose in the United States and Europe, respectively. It has been suggested that this might be too expensive for developing countries — which have much higher death rates from cervical cancer than do developed countries, largely because they lack organized screening programs — meaning that many of the women in need of this vaccine will not get vaccinated (3). It is also possible that this high cost might mean that some socioeconomic groups in the United States will remain unvaccinated. Several health insurance companies have agreed that vaccination with Gardasil will be covered under preventive medicine health care plans, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended that Gardasil be covered by the Vaccines for Children Program (which provides no-cost immunizations to children covered by Medicaid, Alaska Native and American Indian children, and some uninsured and underinsured children). However, some girls do not qualify for the Vaccines for Children Program but come from families too poor to have health insurance or to pay for the vaccine themselves. In addition to the relatively high cost, there are other drawbacks to HPV vaccines. Although Gardasil protects against infection with HPV6, HPV11, HPV16, and HPV18, it will not prevent individuals already infected with either HPV16 or HPV18 from developing cervical cancer, which can occur up to 10 years after infection. It will also not prevent individuals infected with other oncogenic strains of HPV from developing cancer. Experts believe that for these reasons it is important that cervical cancer screening programs are not abandoned, even when herd immunity to HPV16 and HPV18 begins to increase.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.024

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207