MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478092092 · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiw227

Comparison of 2-Dose and 3-Dose 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Schedules in the United States: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

2016· article· en· W2478092092 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐François Laprise, Lauri E. Markowitz, Harrell W. Chesson, Mélanie Drolet, Marc Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHuman papillomavirus vaccineHuman papillomavirusMedicineSchedulePopulationClinical trialVirologyCervical cancerEnvironmental healthInternal medicineComputer scienceCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent clinical trial using the 9-valent human papillomavirus virus (HPV) vaccine has shown that antibody responses after 2 doses are noninferior to those after 3 doses, suggesting that 2 and 3 doses may have comparable vaccine efficacy. We used an individual-based transmission-dynamic model to compare the population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 2- and 3-dose schedules of 9-valent HPV vaccine in the United States. Our model predicts that if 2 doses of 9-valent vaccine protect for ≥20 years, the additional benefits of a 3-dose schedule are small as compared to those of 2-dose schedules, and 2-dose schedules are likely much more cost-efficient than 3-dose schedules.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207