Comparative Performance of Different Traps for Collection of Phlebotominae Sand Flies and Estimation of Biodiversity Indices in Three Endemic Leishmaniasis Foci in North Khorasan Province, Northeast of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phlebotominae sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) are the vectors of leishmaniasis. There are different methods for sand fly collection with different performance. The purpose of the current study was to compare the effect of different traps for collection of Phlebotominae sand flies in three endemic leishmaniasis foci in North Khorasan Province, northeast of Iran. METHODS: Sand flies were collected using seven different traps from three villages, three times each twenty days during peak periods of seasonal activity in 2016. RESULTS: was the most predominant species in the study area. Light trap baited with Carbon dioxide (CLT) and sticky paper trap (SPT) caught 22.6% and 22.3% of sand flies respectively. Animal baited trap (ABT) and white Shannon trap (WST) caught significantly fewer sand flies than the other traps. The sex ratio was different by phlebotominae sand fly species and collection methods. The sex ratio was highest in SPT and lowest in black Shannon trap (BST). Species diversity and species richness in SPT were more than other traps. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm that CLT and SPT are the most efficient sand fly collection methods. CLT is higher attractive for females and Phlebotomus genus and is an ideal method for monitoring the population of Phlebotomus genus during surveillance. SPT is an inexpensive, convenient and easy to be used to detect the presence of sand flies at low densities and provide a more realistic estimation of sand flies biodiversity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".