Effect of human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical cancer screening in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A school-based program with quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was implemented in Alberta in 2008. We assessed the impact of this program on Pap test cytology results using databases of province-wide vaccination and cervical cancer screening. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study involving a cohort of women in Alberta born between 1994 and 1997 who had at least 1 Pap test between 2012 and 2015. Women with negative cytology results were controls. Women with low-grade (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) and high-grade (atypical squamous cells, cannot rule out a high-grade lesion; or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) cervical abnormalities were cases. Exposure status was assigned according to records of HPV vaccination. Odds ratios (ORs) for abnormal cytology results by vaccination status were adjusted for neighbourhood income, laboratory service, rural versus urban residency, and age. RESULTS: The total study population was 10 204. Adjusting for age, vaccinated women had a higher screening rate than unvaccinated women (13.0% v. 11.4%, p < 0.001). Among women who received full vaccination (≥ 3 doses), the adjusted OR for cervical abnormalities was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.82). For high-grade lesions, the adjusted OR was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.85). With 2-dose HPV vaccination, the adjusted OR for cervical abnormalities was 1.08 (95% CI 0.84-1.38). INTERPRETATION: Quadrivalent HPV vaccination significantly reduced high-grade cervical abnormalities but required 3 doses. Vaccination against HPV was associated with screening uptake. Population-based vaccination and screening programs should work together to optimize cervical cancer prevention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".