Long intervals between two doses of HPV vaccines and magnitude of the immune response: a <i>post hoc</i> analysis of two clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this analysis was to compare the anti-HPV GMTs and their distribution after a 6-month or a 3-8 -y interval between two HPV vaccine doses. The results from two clinical trials, conducted by the same team in the same region, with serological assays performed at the same laboratory using the same ELISA methodology were compared. In the first study, 173 9-10-y-old girls and boys received two doses of 9vHPV vaccine at a 6-month interval; in the second study, 31 girls vaccinated with one dose of 4vHPV at the age of 9-14 y received a dose of 9vHPV 3-8 y later (mean 5.4 y). In both studies, blood samples were collected before and 1 month post second dose. Despite large differences in the time since the first dose, all subjects (100%) were seropositive to the common 4 HPV types (6, 11, 16 and 18) to both vaccines, with comparable GMTs and titer distributions before the second dose. One month post second dose, the GMTs increased 40-91-fold for those with a 6-month interval between doses and 60-82-fold for those with a 3-8-y interval. Titer distributions after the booster dose were comparable in the two studies. These results indicate that 2-dose HPV vaccination schedules with an interval of several years could be used for pre-adolescents. Intervals longer than 6 months may facilitate logistics for immunization programs and could be useful during periods of vaccine shortage or as a transition while the effectiveness of a one-dose schedule is being evaluated.
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 | 0.047 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".