MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155808317 · doi:10.1002/ijc.24770

Prevalence and risk factors of human papillomavirus infection by penile site in uncircumcised Kenyan men

2009· article· en· W2155808317 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer S. Smith, Danielle M. Backes, Michael G. Hudgens, Robert C. Bailey, Giovanni Veronesi, Martijn Bogaarts, Kawango Agot, J.O. Ndinya‐Achola, Ian Maclean, Walter Agingu, Chris J.L.M. Meijer, Stephen Moses, Peter J.F. Snijders

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineGlansGlans penisGonorrheaRisk factorConfidence intervalChlamydia trachomatisGynecologyPenisInternal medicineVirologySurgeryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence was estimated from 2,705 sexually active, uncircumcised, human immunodeficiency virus seronegative men aged 17-28 years in Kisumu, Kenya. HPV prevalence was 51.1% (95% confidence interval: 49.2-53.0%) in penile cells from the glans/coronal sulcus and/or shaft. HPV prevalence varied by anatomical site, with 46.5% positivity in the glans/coronal sulcus compared with 19.1% in the shaft (p < 0.0001). High-risk HPV was detected in 31.2% of glans and 12.3% of shaft samples (p < 0.0001). HPV16 was the most common type and 29.2% of men were infected with more than one HPV type. Risk factors for HPV infection included presence of C. trachomatis, N. gonorrhea, self-reported sexually transmitted infections, and less frequent bathing. Lifetime number of sexual partners and herpes simplex virus type-2 seropositivity were also marginally associated with 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations49
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207