Persisting Antibody Response 9 Years After Bivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination in a Cohort of Dutch Women: Immune Response and the Relation to Genital HPV Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is highly effective and induces robust serological responses. Using a Dutch prospective cohort initiated in 2009, including 744 vaccinated and 294 unvaccinated girls (1993-1994) who provide a vaginal self-swab sample, serum sample, and questionnaire yearly, we report a high, persisting antibody response up to 9 years after vaccination for vaccine types HPV-16 or HPV-18. Antibodies against nonvaccine HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 were lower but still significantly higher than in unvaccinated individuals. This was also reflected in the seroprevalence. We compared participant characteristics and antibody levels between vaccinated women with and those without HPV infections 1 year before infection (204 incident and 64 persistent infections), but we observed no consistent difference in type-specific antibody levels. Having a high-risk HPV infection was associated with sexual risk behavior and smoking 1 year before infection. Although high antibody levels are necessary for protection, our study suggests that on the individual level other factors such as HPV exposure or antibody avidity could be important.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".