Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Effectiveness and Herd Protection in Young Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of the 4-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine demonstrate high efficacy, but surveillance studies are essential to examine the long-term impact of vaccine introduction on HPV prevalence in community settings. The aims of this study were to determine during the 11 years after vaccine introduction the prevalence of (1) vaccine-type HPV in adolescent and young adult women who were vaccinated (to assess vaccine effectiveness) and (2) vaccine-type HPV in women who were unvaccinated (to assess herd protection). METHODS: Young women 13 to 26 years of age were recruited from hospital-based and community health clinics for 4 surveillance studies from 2006 to 2017. We determined the proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated women who were positive for vaccine-type HPV across the studies, and the odds of positivity for vaccine-type HPV using logistic regression; all analyses were propensity score-adjusted to control for between-wave differences in participant characteristics. RESULTS: Vaccination rates increased from 0% to 84.3% (97% of study participants received the 4-valent vaccine). Among women who were vaccinated, 4-valent vaccine-type HPV detection decreased from 35% to 6.7% (80.9% decline; odds ratio 0.13, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.22). Among women who were unvaccinated, 4-valent vaccine-type HPV detection decreased from 32.4% to 19.4% (40% decline; odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.97). Estimated vaccine effectiveness was 90.6% in wave 3 and 80.1% in wave 4. CONCLUSIONS: In this study in which trends in HPV in a US community >10 years after 4-valent HPV vaccine introduction and after 9-valent vaccine introduction were examined, we found evidence of vaccine effectiveness and herd protection. Further research is needed to examine trends in 9-valent vaccine-type HPV after higher rates of vaccination are achieved.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".