A Review of the Impact and Effectiveness of the Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: 10 Years of Clinical Experience in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Publicly funded administration of the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine in school-aged girls was implemented for all Canadian provinces and territories between 2007 and 2009. However, the impact of female qHPV vaccination in Canada has yet to be evaluated. This systematic literature review of studies published between September 1, 2006 and September 1, 2016 looked at real-world evidence related to the effects of qHPV vaccination on prevalence of HPV infection and disease in Canada over the past decade. PubMed was searched for studies published between September 1, 2006 and September 1, 2016. Studies were eligible if one or more of the following outcomes were assessed in individuals receiving the qHPV vaccine though public immunization programs: HPV infection, anogenital warts (AGW), HPV-associated lesions of the anogenital tract. A "pre-public vaccination program" or "unvaccinated" reference group was required. Key HPV conference abstracts were also reviewed. We identified seven eligible studies representing five Canadian provinces. Results reported indicated that the prevalence of HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 was lower in qHPV-vaccinated than unvaccinated individuals (1.5% vs. 11.0%, respectively), whereas non-vaccine-covered genotypes were comparable across vaccination status. Risk of AGW incidence decreased by up to 45% in vaccinated cohorts; incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 + was significantly reduced by up to 86% in the post-vaccine era. On the basis of these findings, HPV vaccination programs constitute a successful and effective public health initiative.
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 | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".