Immunogenicity of 2 and 3 Doses of the Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine up to 120 Months Postvaccination: Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several countries have implemented a 2-dose (2D) human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination schedule for adolescents based on immunobridging studies. We compared immunogenicity of 2D vs 3-dose (3D) schedules of the quadrivalent vaccine (4vHPV) up to 10 years after the first dose. METHODS: Girls aged 9-13 years were randomized to receive 2D or 3D and were compared with women aged 16-26 receiving 3D at day 1 and months 7, 24, and 120 after the first dose. Antibody levels for HPV6/11/16/18 were evaluated using the competitive Luminex immunoassay (cLIA) and total immunoglobulin G assay. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) and seropositivity rates were compared between the different groups at different time points. Noninferiority of GMT ratios was defined as the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) being greater than 0.5. Kinetics of antibody titers over time among study groups were examined. RESULTS: At 120 months, data from 35 2D girls, 38 3D girls, and 30 3D women were used for analyses. cLIA seropositivity rates were above 95% for all HPV vaccine types and all schedules, except HPV18, with the lowest seropositivity observed among 3D women (60.0%; 95% CI, 40.6%-77.3%). GMT ratios (cLIA) for both 2D and 3D girls were noninferior to 3 doses in women for HPV6/11/16/18. Trends were comparable between assays. CONCLUSIONS: GMTs for HPV6/11/16/18 after 2D or 3D of 4vHPV in girls were noninferior to 3D in adult women up to 120 months postvaccination. This study demonstrates long-term immunogenicity of the 2D HPV vaccine schedule.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".