MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404705889 · doi:10.7326/m24-0421

Cost-Effectiveness of Extending Human Papillomavirus Vaccination to Population Subgroups Older Than 26 Years Who Are at Higher Risk for Human Papillomavirus Infection in the United States

2024· article· en· W4404705889 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Laprise, Harrell W. Chesson, Lauri E. Markowitz, Mélanie Drolet, Marc Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman papillomavirusVaccinationHuman papillomavirus vaccinePopulationVirologyImmunologyDemographyEnvironmental healthCervical cancerInternal medicineCancerGardasil

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In June 2019, the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended shared clinical decision making regarding potential human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of men and women aged 27 to 45 years ("mid-adults"). OBJECTIVE: To examine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent 1 HPV-related cancer case of expanding HPV vaccination to subgroups of mid-adults at increased risk for HPV-related diseases in the United States. DESIGN: Individual-based transmission dynamic modeling of HPV transmission and associated diseases using HPV-ADVISE (Agent-based Dynamic model for VaccInation and Screening Evaluation). DATA SOURCES: Published data. TARGET POPULATION: All U.S. mid-adults and higher-risk subgroups within this population. TIME HORIZON: 100 years. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector. INTERVENTION: Expanding 9-valent HPV vaccination to mid-adults and higher-risk subgroups. OUTCOME MEASURES: ICERs and NNVs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Expanding 9-valent HPV vaccination to all mid-adults, those with more lifetime partners, and those who have just separated was projected to cost an additional $2 005 000, $763 000, and $1 164 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. The NNVs to prevent 1 additional HPV-related cancer case were 7670, 3190, and 5150, respectively, compared with 223 for vaccination of persons aged 9 to 26 years (vs. no vaccination). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The mid-adult strategy with the lowest ICER and NNV was vaccinating infrequently screened mid-adult women who have just separated and have a higher number of lifetime sex partners (ICER, $86 000 per QALY gained; NNV, 470). LIMITATION: Uncertainty about rate of new sex partners and natural history of HPV among mid-adults. CONCLUSION: Vaccination of mid-adults against HPV is substantially less cost-effective and produces higher NNVs than vaccination of persons younger than 26 years under all scenarios investigated. However, cost-effectiveness and NNV are projected to improve when higher-risk mid-adult subgroups are vaccinated, such as mid-adults with more sex partners and who have recently separated, and women who are underscreened. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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)0.008
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.463
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207