The Impact of Releasing<i> Aedes aegypti</i> Mosquitoes Edited by CRISPR in The Wild on Local Ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impacts of releasing CRISPR-edited Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in the wild on local ecosystems. Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, as an important vector mosquito species, play a pivotal role in the transmission of infectious diseases such as yellow fever and dengue fever. With the rise of CRISPR editing technology, there is an opportunity to reduce the potential of mosquitoes to transmit diseases by precisely editing their genes. The release of this technology in the wild could trigger a range of ecological issues, including ecological niche changes, impacts on food chains and ecological balance, and possible alterations to the adaptive and competitive relationships of non-target species. By exploring these potential impacts in depth, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the ecological risks and opportunities of CRISPR editing technology in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, and to provide a reference for its rational and prudent field application.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".