Insecticide-treated house screening protects against Zika-infected Aedes aegypti in Merida, Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The integration of house-screening and long-lasting insecticidal nets, known as insecticide-treated screening (ITS), can provide simple, safe, and low-tech Aedes aegypti control. Cluster randomised controlled trials in two endemic localities for Ae. aegypti of south Mexico, showed that ITS conferred both, immediate and sustained (~2 yr) impact on indoor-female Ae. aegypti infestations. Such encouraging results require further validation with studies quantifying more epidemiologically-related endpoints, including arbovirus infection in Ae. aegypti. We evaluated the efficacy of protecting houses with ITS on Ae. aegypti infestation and arbovirus infection during a Zika outbreak in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial evaluated the entomological efficacy of ITS compared to the absence of ITS (with both arms able to receive routine arbovirus vector control) in the neighbourhood Juan Pablo II of Merida. Cross-sectional entomological surveys quantified indoor adult mosquito infestation and arbovirus infection at baseline (pre-ITS installation) and throughout two post-intervention (PI) surveys spaced at 6-month intervals corresponding to dry/rainy seasons over one year (2016-2017). Household-surveys assessed the social reception of the intervention. Houses with ITS were 79-85% less infested with Aedes females than control houses up to one-year PI. A similar significant trend was observed for blood-fed Ae. aegypti females (76-82%). Houses with ITS had significantly less infected female Ae. aegypti than controls during the peak of the epidemic (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-0.29), an effect that was significant up to a year PI (OR = 0.24, 0.15-0.39). Communities strongly accepted the intervention, due to its perceived mode of action, the prevalent risk for Aedes-borne diseases in the area, and the positive feedback from neighbours receiving ITS. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We show evidence of the protective efficacy of ITS against an arboviral disease of major relevance, and discuss the relevance of our findings for intervention adoption.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".