MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination in males for the prevention of oropharyngeal cancer.

2013· article· en· W2972633283 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna M. Graham, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Steven Habbous, Claire de Oliveira, Geoffrey Liu, Lillian L. Siu, Jeffrey S. Hoch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalCancer Care OntarioPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationVaccine efficacyCervical cancerCost effectivenessHuman papillomavirusCancer preventionCervixCancerCost-effectiveness analysisDemographyGynecologyInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6033 Background: Many western countries have established female human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes for prevention of cervix cancer. Efficacy against additional HPV-related disease is proven in both sexes, but cost-effectiveness of male vaccination remains controversial. Projected figures suggest incidence and prevalence of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) in North America will exceed that of cervix cancer by 2020 due to HPV-related cases. Two cost-effectiveness analyses evaluating male HPV vaccination have included OPC, with contrasting results. The Canadian government recommends, but does not fund, male vaccination. In order to assess the value for money of male HPV vaccination in Canada with respect to OPC, we performed a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: Following extensive literature review regarding HPV-related OPC in Canadian males, healthcare cost and clinical effectiveness estimates were obtained from published studies. A Markov model was used to compare potential costs and effectiveness of HPV vaccination against no vaccination among males aged 12 years old. A 3-month cycle length was used with a ‘lifetime’ time horizon. The outcome of the analysis was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were conducted on variables such as vaccine uptake rate and efficacy. Results: Assuming 99% vaccine efficacy and 70% uptake, the use of HPV vaccine produced 0.05 more QALYs and saved $204 Canadian dollars (CAD) per person compared with no vaccine (QALYs and costs discounted at 5% per year). Assuming 50% vaccine efficacy and 50% uptake, use of HPV vaccine produced 0.01 more QALYs and saved $43 CAD. Based on a population of 12 year old males of 192,940 in 2012, male HPV vaccination may potentially save $8.3-39.4 million CAD for this cohort over its lifetime. Conclusions: Knowledge gaps exist regarding male HPV vaccination for OPC prevention. Due to practical limitations, including lack of identifiable precursor lesions in OPC, clinical trials to evaluate this issue may not be feasible. Without considering the effects of herd immunity, this preliminary analysis highlights potential savings from male vaccination.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.009
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→