Exploration of the effect of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in a cohort of pregnant women in Montreal, 2010–2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HPV vaccination efficacy has been shown in clinical trials but it is important to verify population level vaccine effectiveness (VE). We aimed to explore VE and herd effect using HPV infection data from a cohort study of Canadian pregnant women. We analyzed the baseline data of the HERITAGE study, which includes pregnant women recruited in Montreal between 2010-2012 and 2015-2016. Cervicovaginal samples self-collected in the first trimester were tested for 36 HPV types. Vaccination status was self-reported. VE and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by comparing the prevalence of HPV between vaccinated and unvaccinated women. Herd effect was explored by comparing HPV prevalence in unvaccinated women between the 2 recruitment periods. Adjusted ORs (95%CI) were estimated using exact logistic regression. The proportion of vaccinated women with at least one dose of 4vHPV was 7.5%. Although most of them were vaccinated after the onset of sexual activity, a high VE was found for HPV-16/18 (86.1% (95%CI: 15.0-99.7)). For HPV-6/11/16/18 and for HPV-31/33/45, VE was 61.9% (-23.5-92.6) and 57.0% (-47.7-92.0%), respectively. We also observed a non-statistically significant reduction in the prevalence of HPV-6/11/16/18 and HPV-31/33/45 among unvaccinated women recruited during the second recruitment period (adjusted OR: 0.8 (0.4-1.8) and 0.8 (0.3-1.7), respectively).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".