MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792248008 · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006283

House screening with insecticide-treated netting provides sustained reductions in domestic populations of Aedes aegypti in Merida, Mexico

2018· article· en· W2792248008 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Azael Che‐Mendoza, Anuar Medina‐Barreiro, Edgar Koyoc-Cardeña, Valentín Uc-Puc, Yamili Contreras‐Perera, Josué Herrera‐Bojórquez, Felipe Dzul-Manzanilla, Fabián Correa‐Morales, Hilary Ranson, Audrey Lenhart, Philip J. McCall, Axel Kroeger, Gonzalo M. Vazquez‐Prokopec, Pablo Manrique‐Saide

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionUniversidad Autónoma de YucatánConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaInternational Development Research CentreInstituto de Seguriidad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabadores del EstadoInstituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialUNICEFWorld Health Organization
KeywordsAedes aegyptiNettingChikungunyaMosquito controlAedesDengue feverToxicologyCluster randomised controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Yellow feverOutbreakBiologyEnvironmental healthTransmission (telecommunications)DeltamethrinMedicineRandomized controlled trialMalariaEcologyVirologyLarvaPesticideVirusSurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a need for effective methods to control Aedes aegypti and prevent the transmission of dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika viruses. Insecticide treated screening (ITS) is a promising approach, particularly as it targets adult mosquitoes to reduce human-mosquito contact. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A cluster-randomised controlled trial evaluated the entomological efficacy of ITS based intervention, which consisted of the installation of pyrethroid-impregnated long-lasting insecticide-treated netting material fixed as framed screens on external doors and windows. A total of 10 treatment and 10 control clusters (100 houses/cluster) were distributed throughout the city of Merida, Mexico. Cross-sectional entomological surveys quantified indoor adult mosquito infestation at baseline (pre-intervention) and throughout four post-intervention (PI) surveys spaced at 6-month intervals corresponding to dry/rainy seasons over two years (2012-2014). A total of 844 households from intervention clusters (86% coverage) were protected with ITS at the start of the trial. Significant reductions in the indoor presence and abundance of Ae. aegypti adults (OR = 0.48 and IRR = 0.45, P<0.05 respectively) and the indoor presence and abundance of Ae. aegypti female mosquitoes (OR = 0.47 and IRR = 0.44, P<0.05 respectively) were detected in intervention clusters compared to controls. This high level of protective effect was sustained for up to 24 months PI. Insecticidal activity of the ITS material declined with time, with ~70% mortality being demonstrated in susceptible mosquito cohorts up to 24 months after installation. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The strong and sustained entomological impact observed in this study demonstrates the potential of house screening as a feasible, alternative approach to a sustained long-term impact on household infestations of Ae. aegypti. Larger trials quantifying the effectiveness of ITS on epidemiological endpoints are warranted and therefore recommended.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS neglected tropical diseasesSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207