Type-Specific Anal Human Papillomavirus Prevalence Among Men, According to Sexual Preference and HIV Status: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, most notably HPV16, the central cause of anal cancer, is increased by anal sexual intercourse and worsened by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positivity. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of type-specific anal HPV prevalence in men, compared according to sexual preference, HIV status, and, when available, anal cytopathology. Results: Seventy-nine eligible studies included: 1805 HIV-negative men who have sex with women (MSW), 924 HIV-positive MSW, 8213 HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM), and 12758 HIV-positive MSM. Irrespective of anal cytopathology, HPV16 prevalence was significantly higher in MSM than MSW, both among HIV-negative (14% vs 3%; prevalence ratio (PR) 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-8.9) and HIV-positive men (30% vs 11%; PR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.9-4.1). Likewise, HPV16 was significantly higher in HIV-positive than HIV-negative men, both among MSW (PR = 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.7) and MSM (PR = 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8-2.5). Anal HPV16 prevalence was similar between HIV-positive MSW and HIV-negative MSM. For MSM, anal HPV16 prevalence was significantly higher from studies with anal cytopathology, suggesting population sampling effects. Conclusion: Sexual preference and HIV infection are independent strong determinants of male anal HPV16 infection, confirming HIV-positive MSM as priorities for anal cancer prevention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".