Is there evidence for efficacy of human papillomavirus vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections worldwide and is associated with precancerous lesions and cancers of the cervix, vulva, vagina, penis, anus, tonsils and base of the tongue. Several studies show an increased risk of HPV-associated cancers in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR). The aims of this review are to investigate the evidence of efficacy for the HPV vaccination in transplant recipients and to discuss the known national guidelines. A systematic literature search has been conducted to identify studies where SOTR received the HPV vaccination to evaluate the efficacy of the HPV vaccine on this population. The primary outcome was antibody response against the HPV genotypes included in the vaccines and the secondary outcome was national guidelines recommending HPV vaccination of SOTR. Three cohort studies evaluated immunogenicity. Two studies found suboptimal effect of the HPV vaccine, while an early terminated study detected 100% seropositivity. We have identified four national guidelines in the following countries; United States of America, Canada, Australia and Ireland, along with a recommendation from the World Health Organization (WHO). The results from the three studies were inconclusive due to the small sample sizes and the diverging results. Recommendations of HPV vaccination of SOTR is based on the knowledge about safety and efficiency in the general population and the safety of other inactivated (not live) vaccines in SOTR. Theoretically, the nonavalent vaccine should be recommended as the first choice in SOTR without age- or sex restrictions.
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 | 0.021 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".