Genital, Oral, and Anal Type-specific Human Papillomavirus Concordance within Individuals and between Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studying human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype concordance between male and female partners and between multiple anatomic sites can help our understanding of HPV epidemiology. METHODS: Heterosexual couples ages 18+ formed within the past 6 months attended visits at 0, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 months. They answered questionnaires and provided genital, oral, and anal samples for HPV genotyping. We calculated observed/expected (O/E) concordance [with 95% confidence intervals (CI)] between anatomic sites of HPV genotype-specific infections across all visits and cumulatively (i.e., ever-positivity). We used mixed-effects logistic regression with random intercepts at the person level to estimate ORs for concordance and to assess predictors of genital HPV detection and partner concordance. RESULTS: Within-individual O/E genital/anal concordance was 23.37 (CI, 15.55-38.05) for females and 14.79 (CI, 9.20-43.45) for males, whereas genital/genital O/E concordance between partners was 14.99 (CI, 12.47-18.41). Genital/genital concordance for ever-positivity within couples was substantial: O/E: 10.06 (CI, 8.55-12.12), with ORs of 70.75 (CI, 43.70-114.56) for females and 67.34 (CI, 41.96-108.06) for males. Significant predictors of genital ever-positivity were one's partner's ever-positivity, ORs of 66.2 (CI, 40.96-107.08) in females and 61.53 (CI, 38.19-99.14) in males, and age above the median in females and males, ORs of 1.66 (CI, 1.06-2.59) in females and 1.95 (CI, 1.30-2.91) in males. Concordance doubled (OR, 1.96; CI, 1.12-3.46) with occasions of intimacy above the median. CONCLUSIONS: We observed substantial genital/anal concordance within individuals (particularly females) and genital/genital concordance between partners. Certain sociodemographic and behavioral factors influenced concordance. IMPACT: Findings shed light on HPV natural history and transmissibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".