Protection to Self and to One's Sexual Partner After Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Preliminary Analysis From the Transmission Reduction And Prevention with HPV Vaccination Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether recently human papillomavirus (HPV)-vaccinated individuals confer protection against vaccine-preventable HPV types to their partners. METHODS: Participants 18 to 45 years old who were living in Montreal, Canada, and in a heterosexual relationship of 6 months or less were randomly assigned to receive the intervention HPV vaccine, Gardasil or Gardasil 9, or active control (AC), Avaxim, a hepatitis A vaccine. Couples attended a maximum of 6 clinic visits (baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 months) and provided genital samples for detection of 36 HPV genotypes. Participants were vaccinated at baseline and at 2 and 6 months. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between the administered vaccine and infections at the HPV episode level. RESULTS: We restricted analyses to 273 participants (intervention: n = 141, AC: n = 132) who had at least 2 visits with valid HPV data. The HR of becoming positive for a given vaccine-preventable HPV type in the intervention group among those who received at least 1 dose compared with AC was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.23-0.97). Comparing individuals with HPV-vaccinated versus AC-vaccinated partners, there was no difference in risk of becoming positive for a given vaccine-preventable HPV type among those whose partners received at least 1 (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.73-2.94) or 2 (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.31-1.96) doses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides inconclusive evidence that individuals whose partner recently received an HPV vaccine are protected from vaccine-preventable types but demonstrates that vaccinated individuals are at a lower risk of incident infections.Trial Registration Number: NCT01824537.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".