A Systematic Review of Fumagillin Field Trials for the Treatment of Nosema Disease in Honeybee Colonies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article systematically reviews controlled field trials of fumagillin dicyclohexylamine in honeybee colonies to determine whether fumagillin effectively controls nosema and whether it is beneficial to colonies. Fifty publications were found that described controlled field trials of fumagillin in honeybee colonies between 1952 and 2023. Fumagillin consistently reduced the prevalence and severity of nosema infections. Doses applied in recent studies were similar to or below those recommended historically. Furthermore, our study showed no negative effects on colony health. Improvements in colony survival, size, and honey production have been demonstrated frequently, though not consistently, in both historic and recent studies. Nevertheless, some practices are not optimal. Treatment decision thresholds based on the number of spores per bee are not well supported by evidence and may be no better than calendar-based prophylactic treatments. In addition, reasonable recommendations to employ quarantine and disinfection procedures together with fumagillin treatment do not appear to have been widely adopted. When used as stand-alone treatments, both the fall- and spring-label doses provide benefits but may be too low and short-term to ensure full control of the disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".