Protective effect of house screening against indoor <i>Aedes aegypti</i> in Mérida, Mexico: A cluster randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the protective effect of house screening (HS) on indoor Aedes aegypti infestation, abundance and arboviral infection in Merida, Mexico. METHODS: In 2019, we performed a cluster randomised controlled trial (6 control and 6 intervention areas: 100 households/area). Intervention clusters received permanently fixed fiberglass HS on all windows and doors. The study included two cross-sectional entomologic surveys, one baseline (dry season in May 2019) and one post-intervention (PI, rainy season between September and October 2019). The presence and number of indoor Aedes females and blood-fed females (indoor mosquito infestation) as well as arboviral infections with dengue (DENV) and Zika (ZIKV) viruses were evaluated in a subsample of 30 houses within each cluster. RESULTS: HS houses had significantly lower risk for having Aedes aegypti female mosquitoes (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.97, p = 0.04) and blood-fed females (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-0.97, p = 0.04) than unscreened households from the control arm. Compared to control houses, HS houses had significantly lower indoor Ae. aegypti abundance (rate ratio [RR] = 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.83, p = 0.01), blood-fed Ae. aegypti females (RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85, p = 0.01) and female Ae. aegypti positive for arboviruses (OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.86, p = 0.02). The estimated intervention efficacy in reducing Ae. aegypti arbovirus infection was 71%. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence supporting the use of HS as an effective pesticide-free method to control house infestations with Aedes aegypti and reduce the transmission of Aedes-transmitted viruses such as DENV, chikungunya (CHIKV) and ZIKV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".