MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617528407 · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4293-9

Aedes aegypti breeding ecology in Guerrero: cross-sectional study of mosquito breeding sites from the baseline for the Camino Verde trial in Mexico

2017· article· en· W2617528407 on OpenAlexaff
Arcadio Morales-Pérez, Elizabeth Nava-Aguilera, Alejandro Balanzar-Martínez, Antonio Juan Cortés-Guzmán, David Gasga-Salinas, Irma Esther Rodríguez-Ramos, Alba Meneses-Rentería, Sergio Paredes‐Solís, José Legorreta-Soberanis, Felipe Gil Armendariz-Valle, Robert J. Ledogar, Anne Cockcroft, Neil Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsBiostatisticsAedes aegyptiBaseline (sea)Public healthEcologyAedesMedicineEnvironmental healthDengue feverBiologyFisheryLarvaVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Understanding the breeding patterns of Aedes aegypti in households and the factors associated with infestation are important for implementing vector control. The baseline survey of a cluster randomised controlled trial of community mobilisation for dengue prevention in Mexico and Nicaragua collected information about the containers that are the main breeding sites, identified possible actions to reduce breeding, and examined factors associated with household infestation. This paper describes findings from the Mexican arm of the baseline survey. METHODS: In 2010 field teams conducted household surveys and entomological inspections in 11,995 households from 90 representative communities in the three coastal regions of Guerrero State, Mexico. We characterized Ae. aegypti breeding sites and examined the effect of two preventive measures: temephos application in water containers, and keeping the containers covered. We examined associations with household infestation, using bivariate and multivariate analysis adjusted for clustering effects. RESULTS: We conducted entomological inspections in 11,995 households. Among 45,353 water containers examined, 6.5% (2958/45,353) were positive for larvae and/or pupae. Concrete tanks (pilas) and barrels (tambos) together accounted for 74% of pupal productivity. Both covering water containers and inserting temephos were independently associated with a lower risk of presence of larvae or pupae, with the effect of covering (OR 0.22; 95% CIca 0.15-0.27) stronger than that of temephos (OR 0.66; 95% CIca 0.53-0.84). Having more than four water containers was associated with household infestation in both rural areas (OR 1.42; 95% CIca 1.17-1.72) and urban areas (1.81; 1.47-2.25), as was low education of the household head (rural: 1.27; 1.11-1.46, and urban: 1.39; 1.17-1.66). Additional factors in rural areas were: household head without paid work (1.31; 1.08-1.59); being in the Acapulco region (1.91; 1.06-3.44); and using anti-mosquito products (1.27; 1.09-1.47). In urban areas only, presence of temephos was associated with a lower risk of household infestation (0.44; 0.32-0.60). CONCLUSION: Concrete tanks and barrels accounted for the majority of pupal productivity. Covering water containers could be an effective means of Ae. aegypti vector control, with a bigger effect than using temephos. These findings were useful in planning and implementing the Camino Verde trial intervention in Mexico.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207