MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130505310 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0909537

Efficacy of Quadrivalent HPV Vaccine against HPV Infection and Disease in Males

2011· article· en· W2130505310 on OpenAlexaff
Anna R. Giuliano, Joel M. Palefsky, Stephen E. Goldstone, Edson Duarte Moreira, Mary E. Penny, Carlos Aranda, Eftyhia Vardas, Harald Moi, Heiko Jessen, Richard J. Hillman, Yen-Hwa Chang, Daron Ferris, Danielle Rouleau, Janine T. Bryan, J. Brooke Marshall, Scott Vuocolo, Eliav Barr, David Radley, Richard M. Haupt, Dalya Güriş

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Research ResourcesGlaxoSmithKlineAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboPopulationHPV infectionVaccine efficacyIncidence (geometry)VaccinationInternal medicineSex organGenital wartsRandomized controlled trialHPV vaccinesConfidence intervalGynecologyImmunologyCervical cancerCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) and diseases caused by HPV are common in boys and men. We report on the safety of a quadrivalent vaccine (active against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18) and on its efficacy in preventing the development of external genital lesions and anogenital HPV infection in boys and men. METHODS: We enrolled 4065 healthy boys and men 16 to 26 years of age, from 18 countries in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. The primary efficacy objective was to show that the quadrivalent HPV vaccine reduced the incidence of external genital lesions related to HPV-6, 11, 16, or 18. Efficacy analyses were conducted in a per-protocol population, in which subjects received all three vaccinations and were negative for relevant HPV types at enrollment, and in an intention-to-treat population, in which subjects received vaccine or placebo, regardless of baseline HPV status. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population, 36 external genital lesions were seen in the vaccine group as compared with 89 in the placebo group, for an observed efficacy of 60.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.8 to 73.8); the efficacy was 65.5% (95% CI, 45.8 to 78.6) for lesions related to HPV-6, 11, 16, or 18. In the per-protocol population, efficacy against lesions related to HPV-6, 11, 16, or 18 was 90.4% (95% CI, 69.2 to 98.1). Efficacy with respect to persistent infection with HPV-6, 11, 16, or 18 and detection of related DNA at any time was 47.8% (95% CI, 36.0 to 57.6) and 27.1% (95% CI, 16.6 to 36.3), respectively, in the intention-to-treat population and 85.6% (97.5% CI, 73.4 to 92.9) and 44.7% (95% CI, 31.5 to 55.6) in the per-protocol population. Injection-site pain was significantly more frequent among subjects receiving quadrivalent HPV vaccine than among those receiving placebo (57% vs. 51%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Quadrivalent HPV vaccine prevents infection with HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 and the development of related external genital lesions in males 16 to 26 years of age. (Funded by Merck and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00090285.).

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1,141
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207