A High Throughput Screening System for Determining the Three Actions of Insecticides Against <I>Aedes aegypti</I> (Diptera: Culicidae) Populations in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemicals can protect humans from the bites of hemophagous arthropods through three different primary actions: irritancy (excitation), repellency, or toxicity, actions that can be evaluated using a laboratory-based assay system. In this study, the deterrent and toxic actions of three synthetic pyrethroids and DDT were characterized on six field strains of Aedes aegypti from Thailand under laboratory-controlled conditions using the high throughput screening system. All six strains showed significant contact irritant responses to the three synthetic pyrethroids, but significantly weaker irritant responses to DDT. Marked repellency responses were seen in all six Ae. aegypti test strains exposed to DDT, whereas the synthetic pyrethroids resulted in greater toxicity than DDT under similar test conditions. Although significantly different in actions, irritancy and repellency may reflect and be influenced by the background insecticide susceptibility status of a particular mosquito population. Results from this study can be used to guide decision making regarding more effective Ae. aegypti adult control in Thailand.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".