MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Additional file 1 of Global impact and cost-effectiveness of one-dose versus two-dose human papillomavirus vaccination schedules: a comparative modelling analysis

2024· article· en· W6939896385 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationCervical cancerChecklistCervical screeningLife tableHuman papillomavirusTable (database)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Table 1. Transmission dynamic model description. Table 2. Vaccination strategies. Table 3. World Bank income group. Table 4. Inputs: HPV-FRAME reporting standard checklist. Table 5. Inputs: HPV-FRAME reporting standard checklist (Continued). Table 6. Outputs: HPV-FRAME reporting standard checklist. Table 7. Internal validation. Figure 1. Cumulative cervical cancers averted by routine one-dose HPV vaccination by income groups, no discounting. Figure 2. Cervical cancer deaths averted by routine one-dose HPV vaccination by income groups, no discounting. Figure 3. Cervical cancers averted by routine one-dose HPV vaccination by income groups, discounted. Figure 4. Cervical cancer deaths averted by routine one-dose HPV vaccination by income groups, discounted. Figure 5. Cumulative cervical cancers averted by routine one-dose HPV vaccination by income groups, discounted. Figure 6. Proportion of cervical cancers averted by 1-dose compared to a perfect vaccine, discounted. Figure 7. Proportion of cervical cancer deaths averted by 1-dose compared to a perfect vaccine. Figure 8. Cervical cancers averted by routine one-dose HPV vaccination by income groups with a 2-valent vaccine. Figure 9. Cervical cancers averted by routine one-dose HPV vaccination by income groups at lower coverage. Figure 10. Proportion of cervical cancer deaths averted by 1-dose compared to a perfect vaccine at lower coverage. Figure 11. Proportion of cervical cancer averted by 1-dose compared to a perfect vaccine when vaccination is delayed. Figure 12. Cervical cancers averted by routine one-dose HPV vaccination by income groups at when vaccination is delayed. Figure 13. Threshold cost to pay for the first and second dose of vaccine, discounting on health outcomes and costs. Figure 14. Threshold cost to pay for the first and second dose of vaccine, no discounting. Figure 15. Number of girls needed to be vaccinated to avert one additional case over the years 2021–2120.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8140.064

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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