Sustained Immunogenicity of 2-dose Human Papillomavirus 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted Vaccine Schedules in Girls Aged 9–14 Years: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously reported the noninferiority 1 month after the last dose of 2-dose human papillomavirus 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted (AS04-HPV-16/18) vaccine schedules at months 0 and 6 (2D_M0,6) and months 0 and 12 (2D_M0,12) in girls aged 9–14 years compared with a 3-dose schedule at months 0, 1, and 6 (3D_M0,1,6) in women aged 15–25 years. Here, we report the results at study end (month 36 [M36]). Girls were randomized 1:1 and received 2 vaccine doses either 6 months (2D_M0,6) or 12 months apart (2D_M0,12); women received 3 doses at months 0, 1, and 6 (3D_M0,1,6). Endpoints included noninferiority of HPV-16/18 antibodies for 2D_M0,6 versus 3D_M0,1,6; 2D_M0,12 versus 3D_M0,1,6; and 2D_M0,12 versus 2D_M0,6; and assessment of neutralizing antibodies, T cells, B cells, and safety. At M36, the 2D_M0,6 and 2D_M0,12 schedules remained noninferior to the 3D_M0,1,6 schedule in terms of seroconversion rates and 3D/2D geometric mean titers for anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18. All schedules elicited sustained immune responses up to M36. Both 2-dose schedules in young girls remained noninferior to the 3-dose schedule in women up to study conclusion at M36. The AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine administered as a 2-dose schedule was immunogenic and well tolerated in young girls.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".