Early use of the HPV 2-dose vaccination schedule: Leveraging evidence to support policy for accelerated impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were initially licensed based on efficacy after three-dose regimens in women aged 15-26 years, it was recognized early in clinical development that comparable immunogenicity could be obtained after just two doses when administered to younger girls. In both Canada and Mexico, public health authorities made the decision to administer two doses 6 months apart with a planned additional dose at 60 months, while simultaneously doing further study to determine if the third dose would confer meaningful additional benefit. This delayed third dose approach permitted a more cost-effective program with opportunities for improved compliance while minimizing injections and leaving open the opportunity to provide a full three-dose vaccination series. It required close cooperation across many governmental and civil society leadership bodies and real-time access to emerging data on HPV vaccine effectiveness. Although still limited, there is increasing evidence that even one-dose vaccination is sufficient to provide prolonged protection against HPV infection and associated diseases. Ongoing clinical trials and ecological studies are expected to consolidate existing data regarding one dose schedule use. However, to accelerate the preventive effect of HPV vaccination some jurisdictions, in particular those with limited resources may already consider the initiation of a one dose vaccination with the possibility of giving the second dose later in life if judged necessary. Such an approach would facilitate vaccination implementation and might permit larger catch-up vaccination programs in older girls (or as appropriate, girls and boys), thereby accelerating the impact on cervical cancer and other HPV-associated diseases.
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 | 0.086 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".