MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982584159 · doi:10.1136/sextrans-2019-sti.877

P832 Effectiveness of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine against HSIL and CIN: a data-linkage study

2019· article· en· W2982584159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robine Donken, Arianne Albert, C. Sarai Racey, Laurie Smith, Dirk van Niekerk, John Spinelli, Heather Pedersen, Mel Krajden, Monika Naus, Cindy Masaro, Meena Dawar, Manish Sadarangani, Gina Ogilvie

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthBC Children's HospitalBC Centre for Disease ControlWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationCervical cancerPoisson regressionCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaIncidence (geometry)PopulationCohortGynecologyHPV vaccinesCancerObstetricsInternal medicineHPV infectionImmunologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Although originally approved for three-doses, two doses of the HPV vaccine are now approved for 9–14 year olds in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Post-hoc analyses have shown similar efficacy compared to three-doses even after one-dose. Vaccinated cohorts that include incompletely vaccinated individuals offer the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of reduced dosing schedules. We aimed to estimate effectiveness of one-dose of quadrivalent vaccine against high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+). Methods Data-linkage was performed between the population-based Cervical Cancer Screening Program and immunization registries in BC. Occurrence of HSIL and CIN2+ were compared in a screening cohort of YW born between 1994–2005 who were either (a) unvaccinated; (b) completely vaccinated per-schedule (2-doses 150 days apart or 3-doses) between 9–14 years of age; or (c) vaccinated between 9–14 years of age with one-dose. Relative incidence rates (RR, (95%CI)) were calculated using Poisson regression and adjusted for birth year and age at first screening. Results Overall, 19,496 women were unvaccinated, 14,130 were completely vaccinated (mean age at vaccination 13.3±1.2), and 471 vaccinated with one dose only (mean age at vaccination 13.4±1.1). We found significant protection among completely vaccinated compared to unvaccinated women. The adjusted RR for HSIL was 0.52 (0.43–0.64) and for CIN2+ 0.42 (0.31–0.57). No significant protection after one dose against HSIL and CIN2+ was observed compared with unvaccinated women, respective adjusted RR 0.69 (0.27–1.41) and 1.21 (0.43–2.86). Conclusion In this observational study, no evidence of protection of one-dose against HSIL and CIN2+ was observed, while protection was found amongst completely vaccinated. The small sample size and the potential for administrative data biases may have impacted this preliminary analysis. This methodological approach provides a platform for further analyses, with larger numbers, to determine the potential impact of single dose HPV vaccination. Disclosure No significant relationships.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207