MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805182203 · doi:10.2196/10503

Human Papillomavirus and Oropharyngeal Cancer Among Indigenous Australians: Protocol for a Prevalence Study of Oral-Related Human Papillomavirus and Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention

2018· article· en· W2805182203 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa Jamieson, Gail Garvey, Joanne Hedges, Amanda Mitchell, Terry Dunbar, Cathy Leane, Isaac Hill, Kate Warren, Alex Brown, Xiangqun Ju, David Roder, Richard M. Logan, Newell W. Johnson, Megan A. Smith, Annika Antonsson, Karen Canfell

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationCancerCervical cancerHPV vaccinesVaccinationDemographyHPV infectionCancer preventionCarriageGynecologyFamily medicineGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineVirologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oropharyngeal cancer is an important, understudied cancer affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The human papillomavirus (HPV) is a significant risk factor for oropharyngeal cancer. Current generation HPV vaccines are effective against the 2 most common types of high-risk HPVs in cancer (hrHPVs 16/18). OBJECTIVES: This study aims (1) to yield population estimates of oncogenic genotypes of HPV in the mouth and oropharynx of defined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations; (2) to estimate the proportion of oropharyngeal cancer attributable to HPV among these Australian citizens; (3) to estimate the impact of HPV vaccination as currently implemented on rates of oropharyngeal cancer among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians; and (4) taking into account impact on oropharyngeal as well as cervical cancer, to evaluate efficacy and cost-effectiveness of targeted extended HPV vaccination to older ages, among our study population. METHODS: Our study design and operation is straightforward, with minimal impost on participants. It involves testing for carriage of hrHPV in the mouth and oropharynx among 1000 Aboriginal South Australians by simple saliva collection and with follow-up at 12 and 24 months, collection of sexual history at baseline, collection of information for estimating health state (quality-of-life) utilities at baseline, genotyping of viruses, predictive outcome and cost-effectiveness modeling, data interpretation and development of vaccination, and follow-up management strategies driven by the Aboriginal community. RESULTS: Participant recruitment for this study commenced in February 2018 and enrollment is ongoing. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The project will have a number of important outcomes. Synthesis of evidence will enable generation of estimates of the burden of oropharyngeal cancer among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and indicate the likely effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prevention. This will be important for health services planning, and for Aboriginal health worker and patient education. The results will also point to important areas where research efforts should be focused to improve outcomes in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians with oropharyngeal cancer. There will be a strong focus on community engagement and accounting for the preferences of individuals and the community in control of HPV-related cancers. The project has international relevance in that it will be the first to systematically evaluate prevention of both cervical and oropharyngeal cancer in a high-risk Indigenous population taking into account all population, testing, and surveillance options. REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/10503.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.009

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 head0.381
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207