MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405625950 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126644

HPV vaccination and anal HPV infection in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men

2024· article· en· W4405625950 on OpenAlexafffund
Pareesa Kassam, Mariam El‐Zein, Joseph E. Tota, Pierre‐Paul Tellier, François Coutlée, Alexandra de Pokomandy, Eduardo L. Franco

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMerck Canada
KeywordsMen who have sex with menHomosexualityVaccinationAnal sexMale HomosexualityGynecologyMedicineVirologyPsychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Syphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) have a higher risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and related diseases and would benefit from preventive measures such as HPV vaccination. We assessed the association between HPV vaccination and anal HPV infection in HIV-negative gbMSM and gbMSM living with HIV from the Lubricant Investigation in Men to Inhibit Transmission of HPV Infection study. Participants attended 7 visits over 12 months where they provided a nurse-collected anal sample and self-completed a questionnaire on risk factors and HPV vaccination. Samples were tested for HPV using polymerase chain reaction assays. We assessed the association with HPV vaccination and anal HPV prevalence and incidence using logistic and Cox regression, respectively. Analyses at the individual- (unit of analysis = participant) and HPV-level (unit of analysis = HPV type) considered vaccine-targeted types (any of HPVs 6/11/16/18) as the outcome. To assess construct validity, we repeated analyses considering incidence of non-vaccine-targeted (within- and cross-species) HPV types at the HPV-level. Estimates were adjusted for a propensity score to predict cumulative HPV positivity based on selected study and participant characteristics. Of 258 enrolled participants (18.2–71.7 years; 69 being HIV-positive), 23.3 % were vaccinated at baseline. At the individual-level, there was no association between vaccination and HPVs 6/11/16/18 prevalence ( n = 250, aOR = 1.12, 95 % CI = 0.56–2.22) or incidence ( n = 152, aHR = 0.34, 95 % CI = 2.19 × 10 −18 -1.38). At the HPV-level, while there was no association with HPVs 6/11/16/18 prevalence ( n = 1000, aOR = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.57–1.71), vaccination was associated with a reduction in HPVs 6/11/16/18 incidence ( n = 754, aHR = 0.22, 95 % CI = 6.01 × 10 −18 -0.79). Vaccination was not associated with incidence of within-species ( n = 2299, aHR = 0.76, CI = 0.42–1.24) or cross-species ( n = 3774, aHR = 1.28, CI = 0.89–1.85) HPV types. Results were similar by HIV status. Our findings support that HPV vaccination protects against incident anal infection of vaccine-targeted HPV types, thus, gbMSM should be encouraged to get vaccinated against HPV.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccine→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→