Protection Against Persistent HPV-16/18 Infection After Different Number of Doses of Quadrivalent Vaccine in Girls and Young Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: There are no randomized studies comparing the long-term effectiveness of a 2-dose schedule (administered at 0 and 6 months) of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (4vHPV) with a 2 + 1-dose schedule (administered at 0, 6, and 60 months) given to preadolescents for the prevention of persistent HPV-16 and HPV-18 infection. Objective: To evaluate whether a 2-dose 4vHPV schedule is noninferior to a 2 + 1-dose schedule for preventing persistent HPV-16 and HPV-18 infection up to 13 years after the first dose. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-arm, parallel, noninferiority, randomized clinical trial (RCT), called ICI-VPH (Impact of HPV Immunization Schedules Against HPV), was conducted in Québec, Canada, from 2013 to 2021. Eligible participants were girls who had received 2 doses of 4vHPV, 6 months apart when they were aged 9 to 11 years, 5 years prior to trial recruitment. Efficacy-evaluable population analysis was conducted between April 2023 and June 2024. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to the 2-dose or 2 + 1-dose groups. The 2 + 1-dose group received a booster dose of 4vHPV at the recruitment visit. Both groups were instructed on how to self-collect a vaginal sample, provided an initial vaginal swab, and completed an online questionnaire. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was persistent HPV-16 and HPV-18 infection, defined as the presence of HPV-16 or HPV-18 DNA in 2 consecutive vaginal samples self-collected 5 to 15 months apart. Results: Among the 3356 participants, the mean (SD) age at enrollment was 14.8 (0.4) years, and 2867 (85.4%) were French Canadian individuals. Of the 3364 participants initially randomized, 8 (0.2%) withdrew immediately after randomization, 1675 (49.8%) were assigned to the 2-dose group, and 1681 (50.0%) were assigned to the 2 + 1-dose group. Of the 16 989 genotyping tests analyzed, 31 (0.2%) detected vaccine-type HPV-6, -11, -16, and -18. Only 1 participant in the 2 + 1-dose group (0.1%) had a time-limited persistent HPV-16 infection. Conclusions and Relevance: This clinical trial found that the incidence of HPV-16 and HPV-18 infection was low with both the 2-dose and 2 + 1-dose 4vHPV schedules. A 2-dose schedule provided robust protection against persistent HPV-16 and HPV-18 infection for up to 13 years, suggesting that a booster dose administered at 60 months would not provide additional benefit. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02009800.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".