New highland distribution records of multiple Anopheles species in the Ecuadorian Andes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several recent climate change reviews have stressed the possibility of some malaria vectors occupying regions of higher altitudes than previously recorded. Indeed, highland malaria has been observed in several African nations, possibly attributable to changes in land use, vector control and local climate. This study attempts to expand the current knowledge of the distribution of common Anopheles species in Ecuador, with particular attention to highland regions (> 500 m) of the Andes. METHODS: Extensive field collections of larvae were undertaken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 throughout all regions of Ecuador (except the lower-altitude Amazonian plain) and compared to historical distribution maps reproduced from the 1940s. Larvae were identified using both a morphological key and sequencing of the 800 bp region of the CO1 mitochondrial gene. In addition, spatial statistics (Getis-Ord Hotspot Analysis: Gi*) were used to determine high and low-density clusters of each species in Ecuador. RESULTS: Distributions have been updated for five species of Anopheles in Ecuador: Anopheles albimanus, Anopheles pseudopunctipennis, Anopheles punctimacula, Anopheles eiseni and Anopheles oswaldoi s.l.. Historical maps indicate that An. pseudopunctipennis used to be widespread in highland Andean valleys, while other species were completely restricted to lowland areas. By comparison, updated maps for the other four collected species show higher maximum elevations and/or more widespread distributions in highland regions than previously recorded. Gi* analysis determined some highland hot spots for An. albimanus, but only cold spots for all other species. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents the establishment of multiple anopheline species in high altitude regions of Ecuador, often in areas where malaria eradication programs are not focused.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".