Anal HPV 16 and 18 viral load: A comparison between HIV‐negative and ‐positive MSM and association with persistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does anal HPV viral load explain the difference in anal HPV persistence between HIV‐negative and ‐positive men who have sex with men (MSM)? MSM ≥18 years were recruited in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in 2010‐2011. Anal self‐swabs were collected every 6 months and genotyped (SPF10‐PCR‐DEIA‐LIPA25‐system). HPV16 and HPV18 load was determined with a type specific quantitative (q)PCR, and compared between HIV‐negative and ‐positive men using ranksum test. Persistence was defined as ≥3 positive samples for the same HPV‐type. Determinants of persistent HPV16/18 infection and its association with HPV16/18 load were assessed with logistic regression. Of 777 recruited MSM, 54 and 22 HIV negative men were HPV16 and HPV18 positive at baseline, and 64 and 39 HIV‐positive MSM. The geometric mean titer (GMT) of HPV16 was 19.6 (95%CI 10.1‐38.0) and of HPV18 8.6 (95%CI 2.7‐27.5) DNA copies/human cell. HPV16 and HPV18 load did not differ significantly between HIV‐negative and ‐positive MSM (P = 0.7; P = 0.8, respectively). In multivariable analyses HPV16 load was an independent determinant of HPV16 persistence (OR 1.8, 95%CI 1.3‐2.4). No difference in anal HPV viral load was found between HIV‐positive and HIV‐negative MSM. HPV 16/18 viral load is an independent determinant of type‐specific persistence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".