Ovicidal Efficacy of Abametapir Against Eggs of Human Head and Body Lice (Anoplura: Pediculidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies were undertaken to determine the ovicidal efficacy of 5,5′-dimethyl-2,2′-bipyridyl (abametapir) against eggs of both human head and body lice. Head lice eggs of different ages (0–2, 3–5, and 6–8-d-old eggs) were exposed to varying concentrations of abametapir in isopropanol and concentration-dependent response relationships established based on egg hatch. One hundred percent of all abametapir-treated eggs failed to hatch at the 0.74 and 0.55% concentrations, whereas 100% of 6–8-d-old head louse eggs failed to hatch only at the 0.74% concentration. The LC50 value for abametapir varied, depending on the age of the head lice eggs, from ∼0.10% recorded for 0–2-d-old eggs and increasing to ∼0.15% for 6–8-d-old eggs. Abametapir was also evaluated once formulated into a lotion referred to as Xeglyze (0.74% abametapir) and serial dilutions made. Ovicidal efficacies were determined against head lice eggs 0–8-d-old. Results indicated 100% ovicidal activity at the 0.74, 0.55, 0.37, and 0.18% concentrations. Additional studies undertaken using body lice eggs also demonstrated that abametapir was 100% ovicidal against eggs of all ages when evaluated at a concentration of 0.37 and 0.55%. Given that ovicidal activity is a critical component of any effective treatment regime for louse control, the data presented in this study clearly demonstrate the ability of abametapir to inhibit hatching of both head and body louse eggs as assessed in vitro.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".