Diurnal biting of malaria mosquitoes in the Central African Republic indicates residual transmission may be “out of control”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malaria control interventions target nocturnal feeding of the Anopheles vectors indoors to reduce parasite transmission. Mass deployment of insecticidal bed nets and indoor residual spraying with insecticides, however, may induce mosquitoes to blood-feed at places and at times when humans are not protected. These changes can set a ceiling to the efficacy of these control interventions, resulting in residual malaria transmission. Despite its relevance for disease transmission, the daily rhythmicity of Anopheles biting behavior is poorly documented, most investigations focusing on crepuscular hours and nighttime. By performing mosquito collections 48-h around the clock, both indoors and outdoors, and by modeling biting events using circular statistics, we evaluated the full daily rhythmicity of biting in urban Bangui, Central African Republic. While the bulk of biting by Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles coluzzii, Anopheles funestus, and Anopheles pharoensis occurred from sunset to sunrise outdoors, unexpectedly ∼20 to 30% of indoor biting occurred during daytime. As biting events did not fully conform to any family of circular distributions, we fitted mixtures of von Mises distributions and found that observations were consistent with three compartments, corresponding indoors to populations of early-night, late-night, and daytime-biting events. It is not known whether these populations of biting events correspond to spatiotemporal heterogeneities or also to distinct mosquito genotypes/phenotypes belonging consistently to each compartment. Prevalence of Plasmodium falciparum in nighttime- and daytime-biting mosquitoes was the same. As >50% of biting occurs in Bangui when people are unprotected, malaria control interventions outside the domiciliary environment should be envisaged.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".