Non-inferior antibody levels for HPV16/18 after extended two-dose schedules compared with a six-month interval: findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protection after human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination can be maximized by optimizing vaccination schedules. We systematically reviewed immunogenicity and effectiveness of HPV vaccines administered 6 months apart compared with longer intervals. Seroconversion to vaccine-type HPV was non-inferior for 12- compared with 6-month intervals, but inconclusive for comparison of 36-96 months with 6 months. A 12-month interval showed non-inferior (margin 0.5) vaccine-type HPV antibody responses compared with a 6-month interval. Compared to 6 months, an interval of 36-96 months resulted in non-inferior antibody responses for HPV6 and high-risk types HPV16 and 18, but did not lead to a non-inferior antibody response for HPV11 (GMR 0.63, 95% CI:0.41-0.97). Data on the effectiveness of extended two-dose schedules were limited. Our findings indicate that HPV immunization programs could adopt a 12-month interval instead of 6 months for increased flexibility without compromising immunogenicity. Further evaluation to confirm the immunogenicity and effectiveness of intervals beyond 12 months is warranted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".