Sexual Transmission of Oral Human Papillomavirus Infection among Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We estimated the prevalence of oral human papillomavirus (HPV) and assessed risk factors among young heterosexual men participating in the HPV Infection and Transmission among Couples through Heterosexual Activity (HITCH) study. Oral and genital HPV samples were collected from 222 men and their female partners who were participating in the HITCH study, a longitudinal cohort on HPV transmission among heterosexual couples. Demographic and behavioral data were collected through self-administered computer questionnaires and biologic samples were tested with the Linear Array for HPV. Outcome measures were overall and type-specific prevalence of oral HPV. The prevalence of oral HPV among men was 7.2% and was higher among men who were ever smokers (12.2%), in nonmonogamous relationships (17.9%), or had a partner with oral (28.6%) and/or genital (11.5%) HPV infection. Moreover, prevalence increased with frequency of oral sex among men whose partner who had a genital infection with the same HPV type. Our results provide further evidence that oral HPV may be transmitted through either oral-oral or oral-genital routes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".