Behavioral responses of<i>Anopheles</i>species (Culicidae: Diptera) with varying surface exposure to pyrethroid-treated netting in an excito-repellency test system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indoor Residual Spray (IRS) with insecticides has been a procedure used for decades to protect humans from biting mosquitoes and potential vectors of pathogens. The objective of this study was to determine the responses of three wild-caught species of malaria vectors exposed to pyrethroids of three different surface coverage percents using an excito-repellency test box. Each species was exposed to three insecticide-treated surfaces at varying exposure levels (full coverage, 50%, and 25% of the maximum allowable by the test system) to a single standard field dose of either lambda-cyhalothrin or alpha-cypermethrin. Larger numbers of mosquitoes escaped the treated chambers in the direct contact test compared to the spatial repellent chambers in all three different treated surface exposures. No significant differences in the percent of escaped mosquitoes were detected in the 50% and full coverage surface coverage exposures, whereas the 25% coverage produced significantly lower avoidance responses for both compounds. This study found that varying levels of surface exposure with synthetic pyrethroids can impact the behavioral avoidance responses of Anopheles; however, it may also be possible to reduce the amount of coverage to achieve similar avoidance actions. This information may assist policy makers in designing more cost effective strategies involving residual insecticides to control mosquito vectors.
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) | 0.001 | 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".