A scoping review to determine if adverse human health effects are associated with use of organophosphates for mosquito control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organophosphate insecticides are widely used for adult mosquito control. Although proven effective in reducing mosquito populations and limiting arbovirus transmission, public concern exists regarding potential human health effects associated with organophosphate exposure. The aim of this scoping review was to describe any reported human health conditions associated with organophosphates during their use for adult mosquito control in the United States and Canada. Original peer-reviewed articles published in English language journals from 1 January 2000 to 22 May 2024, were obtained by searching from the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection, CAB Abstracts, and Scopus. The search identified 6,154 screened articles. Following an independent review, 10 studies were identified that described human health conditions associated with organophosphate exposure during adult mosquito control applications. Of the 10 included studies, only two articles were published within the last 11 years (2013 to 22 May 2024). Three types of study design were represented in the included studies: cohort (n = 5), case study (n = 1), and risk assessment (n = 4). The included studies could not determine causality between exposure to adulticides and development of illness or adverse impacts. Exposure to organophosphates did not contribute to an observed increase in metabolic toxicity, hospitalization rates, or self-reported symptoms and exposure. The available and limited evidence indicates that organophosphates can be used safely to control nuisance mosquitoes or mosquitoes that transmit arboviruses. Continued research regarding the human health effects associated with organophosphate applications for adult mosquito control could help evaluate the basis of the public's concerns and inform public health decision-making.
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 | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".