Self-reported Human Papillomavirus Vaccination and Vaccine Effectiveness Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Quantitative Bias Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-report of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination has ~80-90% sensitivity and ~75-85% specificity. We measured the effect of nondifferential exposure misclassification associated with self-reported vaccination on vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. METHODS: Between 2017-2019, we recruited sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men aged 16-30 years in Canada. VE was derived as 1-prevalence ratio × 100% for prevalent anal HPV infection comparing vaccinated (≥1 dose) to unvaccinated men using a multivariable modified Poisson regression. We conducted a multidimensional and probabilistic quantitative bias analysis to correct VE estimates. RESULTS: Bias-corrected VE estimates were relatively stable across sensitivity values but differed from the uncorrected estimate at lower values of specificity. The median adjusted VE was 27% (2.5-97.5th simulation interval = -5-49%) in the uncorrected analysis, increasing to 39% (2.5-97.5th simulation interval = 2-65%) in the bias-corrected analysis. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of participants erroneously reporting HPV vaccination would be required to meaningfully change VE estimates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".