Male Circumcision Reduces Penile HPV Incidence and Persistence: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Male circumcision reduces the risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection in men. We assessed the effect of male circumcision on the incidence and natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV) in a randomized clinical trial in Kisumu, Kenya. METHODS: Sexually active, 18- to 24-year-old men provided penile exfoliated cells for HPV DNA testing every 6 months for 2 years. HPV DNA was detected via GP5+/6+ PCR in glans/coronal sulcus and in shaft samples. HPV incidence and persistence were assessed by intent-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2,193 men participated (1,096 randomized to circumcision; 1,097 controls). HPV prevalence was 50% at baseline for both groups and dropped to 23.7% at 24 months in the circumcision group, and 41.0% in control group. Incident infection of any HPV type over 24 months was lower among men in the circumcision group than in the control group [HR = 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.72]. Clearance rate of any HPV infection over 24 months was higher in the circumcision group than in the control group (HR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.49-2.34). Lower HPV point-prevalence, lower HPV incidence, and higher HPV clearance in the circumcision group were observed in glans but not in shaft samples. CONCLUSION: Male circumcision reduced the risk of HPV acquisition and reinfection, and increased HPV clearance in the glans. IMPACT: Providing voluntary, safe, and affordable male circumcision should help reduce HPV infections in men, and consequently, HPV-associated disease in their partners.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".