MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403171158 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.240787

Switching from a 2-dose to a 1-dose program of gender-neutral routine vaccination against human papillomavirus in Canada: a mathematical modelling analysis

2024· article· en· W4403171158 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mélanie Drolet, Jean‐François Laprise, Éléonore Chamberland, Chantal Sauvageau, Sarah Wilson, Gillian Lim, Gina Ogilvie, Ashleigh R. Tuite, Marc Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalThe Wilson CentrePublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Immunization Research NetworkPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsHuman papillomavirusVaccinationComputer sciencePapillomaviridaeMedicineVirologyCervical cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, countries are examining whether to implement 1-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination instead of using 2 doses. To inform policy, we sought to project the population-level impact and efficiency of switching from 2-dose to 1-dose gender-neutral routine HPV vaccination in Canada. METHODS: We used HPV-ADVISE, an individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infections and diseases, to mathematically model vaccination programs in 2 provinces, Quebec, a province with high HPV vaccination coverage (around 85%), and Ontario, which has lower coverage (around 65%). We examined non-inferior and pessimistic scenarios of the efficacy (vaccine efficacy of 98% or 90%) and average vaccine duration (lifelong, 30 yr, or 25 yr) of 1 dose compared with 2 doses (98% vaccine efficacy, lifelong vaccine duration). Our main outcomes were the relative reduction in HPV-16 (by sex) and cervical cancers, and the number of doses needed to prevent 1 cervical cancer. RESULTS: Our model projected that 1-dose HPV vaccination would avert a similar number of cervical cancers as 2 doses in Canada, under various scenarios. Under the most pessimistic scenario (25-yr vaccine duration), 1-dose vaccination would avert fewer cervical cancers than 2 doses, by about 3 percentage points over 100 years. All 1-dose scenarios were projected to lead to elimination of cervical cancer (< 4 cervical cancers/100 000 female-years) and to be a substantially more efficient use of vaccine doses than a 2-dose scenario (1-dose v. no vaccination = 800-1000 doses needed to prevent 1 cervical cancer; incremental doses for 2-dose v. 1-dose vaccination > 10 000 doses needed to prevent 1 additional cervical cancer). INTERPRETATION: If the average duration of 1-dose protection is longer than 25 years, a 1-dose HPV vaccination program would protect those vaccinated during their peak ages of sexual activity and prevent a similar number of HPV-related cancers as a 2-dose program, while being a more efficient use of vaccine doses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→