Review of Evidence and Recommendation for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination of Canadian Males Over the Age of 26 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV) remains the most common sexually transmitted infection with a lifetime incidence of over 75%. Based on US data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of invasive HPV-associated cancers are attributable to HPV 16 or 18 (65% for females; 63% males) and may be prevented by vaccination with either the quadrivalent or nonavalent HPV vaccine. Public HPV vaccination programs are now the norm for women aged 9-45 years and men aged 9-26 years in Canada. Yet, only recently have guidelines begun to consider vaccination of men older than 26 years of age. There now exist compelling reasons to recommend vaccination against HPV amongst males >26 years of age. Recognizing that the risks posed by HPV infection persist beyond 26 years of age, that the vaccination of men aged 26-45 years with HPV vaccine confers immunogenicity at levels demonstrably efficacious against HPV-related diseases, and that the Food and Drug Administration recently expanded the HPV vaccination to include older men, it is argued that HPV vaccination in men older than 26 years of age should be routinely recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".