MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884792105 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v41is3a03

Summary of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization’s Update on the recommended human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine immunization schedule

2015· article· en· W2884792105 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shainoor J. Ismail, Shelley L. Deeks

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunizationAdvisory committeeMedicineVaccinationScheduleHuman papillomavirusHPV vaccinesHuman papillomavirus vaccineFamily medicineImmunologyHPV infectionImmune systemGardasilCervical cancerInternal medicineCancerPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infections are the most common sexually transmitted infections.In the absence of vaccination, it is estimated that 75% of sexually active Canadians will have a sexually transmitted HPV infection at some point in their lives.Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) has recommended a three-dose immunization schedule with HPV vaccine for females 9 years of age and older and for males between 9 and 26 years of age, since 2007 and 2012, respectively.Objective: To outline the evidence on a two-dose HPV vaccine schedule and to make recommendations for the optimal HPV immunization schedule in Canada.Methods: NACI reviewed the evidence used by the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization for the two-dose HPV immunization schedule recommended for immunocompetent girls 9 to 14 years of age and conducted an additional review of literature for studies not included in, or published after, the SAGE review.A knowledge synthesis was performed then NACI approved specific recommendations and elucidated the rationale and relevant considerations.Results: Based on the evidence available to date, a two-dose HPV immunization schedule among immunocompetent 9-to 14-year-olds is expected to provide similar protective efficacy compared to a three-dose schedule in immunocompetent individuals aged 9 to 26 years.While all studies reviewed included only females, there is no reason to believe that the data would be different in males, given that data from three-dose trials demonstrates similar immune responses.Administration of two doses of HPV vaccine rather than three may increase acceptability by students, parents and health care professionals alike, and may lead to improved HPV immunization coverage and efficiencies by public health agencies.The duration of protection of either two doses or three doses of HPV vaccine is not yet known; research is encouraged to determine whether there is need for a booster dose.Conclusion: Based on the evidence available to date, a two-dose HPV immunization schedule (given at least six months apart) among immunocompetent 9-to 14-year-olds may be considered by individuals and jurisdictions to allow for potential cost savings and other individual and programmatic advantages.A three-dose schedule should be used in individuals 15 years of age and older, as well as immunocompromised individuals and immunocompetent HIV-infected individuals.The new and complete set of current recommendations for HPV vaccines will be published in the updated HPV chapter in the Canadian Immunization Guide in the near future.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.015

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207