MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313236804 · doi:10.1080/14760584.2023.2162505

A review of data systems for assessing the impact of HPV vaccination in selected high-income countries

2022· review· en· W4313236804 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wei Wang, Smita Kothari, Hanane Khoury, Linda M. Niccolai, Suzanne M. Garland, Karin Sundström, Gérard de Pouvourville, Paolo Bonanni, Ya-Ting Chen, Eduardo L. Franco

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationCervical cancerScope (computer science)MedicineHuman papillomavirusData collectionCancer preventionScale (ratio)HPV vaccinesLow and middle income countriesEnvironmental healthHPV infectionFamily medicineDeveloping countryEconomic growthCancerGeographyImmunologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of effective human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, screening, and treatment programs has led the World Health Organization to call for the global elimination of cervical cancer. Assessing progress toward this goal is supported through monitoring vaccination coverage and its impact. AREAS COVERED: We performed a targeted review to assess the characteristics of HPV-related data systems from seven high-income countries (HICs) that represented varied approaches, including Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States (US). Included data systems focused on preventive and early detection measures: HPV vaccination and cervical screening programs, as well as HPV-related disease outcomes. Differences were observed in approach to development of data systems, along with variation in geographical scope and methods of data collection. EXPERT OPINION: A challenge exists in how to best follow-up the ongoing global-scale elimination efforts in a comprehensive manner. These sources provide a wealth of information regarding the strengths and limitations of, and notable variation among, current data systems used in HICs. This review can inform improvements to existing prevention programs and the implementation of new programs in other countries, and thus support optimization of cervical cancer prevention policy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207