MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941160190 · doi:10.1080/22423982.2018.1556556

Persistence of human papillomavirus 16, 18 and 52 variants in Inuit women from Northern Quebec, Canada

2018· article· en· W2941160190 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Barbara Gauthier, Helen Cerigo, François Coutlée, Eduardo L. Franco, Paul Brassard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)Human papillomavirusDemographyGeographyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intratypic DNA polymorphism has been described for human papillomavirus (HPV) types infecting Inuit women in Nunavik, Quebec, a high-risk population for HPV infection and cervical cancer, but there is no previous research on the association between HPV polymorphism and infection persistence in Inuit women. Polymorphism of HPV types 16, 18 and 52 was described in a subset of 64 participants with multiple clinic visits within a cohort of 677 Nunavik Inuit women aged 15-69 recruited in 2002-2010 with testing results. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between HPV variants and infection persistence and clearance. Infections with HPV16 lineage A3 variants cleared 3.13 times faster (95% CI: 1.10-8.97) than those with lineage A1 variants. HPV52 lineage C variants cleared slower than lineage A variants (HR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.08-0.98). HPV polymorphism may be associated with viral persistence for certain HPV types in this population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207