A Human-Health Risk Assessment for West Nile Virus and Insecticides Used in Mosquito Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
West Nile virus (WNV) has been a major public health concern in North America since 1999, when the first outbreak in the Western Hemisphere occurred in New York City. As a result of this ongoing disease outbreak, management of mosquitoes that vector WNV throughout the United States and Canada has necessitated using insecticides in areas where they traditionally have not been used or have been used less frequently. This has resulted in concerns by the public about the risks from insecticide use. The objective of this study was to use reasonable worst-case risk assessment methodologies to evaluate human-health risks for WNV and the insecticides most commonly used to control adult mosquitoes. We evaluated documented health effects from WNV infection and determined potential population risks based on reported frequencies. We determined potential acute (1-day) and subchronic (90-day) multiroute residential exposures from each insecticide for several human subgroups during a WNV disease outbreak scenario. We then compared potential insecticide exposures to toxicologic and regulatory effect levels. Risk quotients (RQs, the ratio of exposure to toxicologic effect) were < 1.0 for all subgroups. Acute RQs ranged from 0.0004 to 0.4726, and subchronic RQs ranged from 0.00014 to 0.2074. Results from our risk assessment and the current weight of scientific evidence indicate that human-health risks from residential exposure to mosquito insecticides are low and are not likely to exceed levels of concern. Further, our results indicate that, based on human-health criteria, the risks from WNV exceed the risks from exposure to mosquito insecticides.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".