Nosemosis negatively affects honeybee survival: experimental and meta-analytic evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nosemosis, caused by microsporidian parasites of the genus Nosema , is considered a significant health concern for insect pollinators, including the economically important honeybee ( Apis mellifera ). Despite its acknowledged importance, the impact of this disease on honeybee survivorship remains unclear. Here, a standard laboratory cage trial was used to compare mortality rates between healthy and Nosema -infected honeybees. Additionally, a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature were conducted to explore how nosemosis contributes to increased mortality in honeybees tested under standard conditions. The review and meta-analysis included 50 studies that reported relevant experiments involving healthy and Nosema -infected individuals. Studies lacking survivorship curves or information on potential moderators, such as spore inoculation dose, age of inoculated bees, or factors that may impact energy expenditure, were excluded. Both the experimental results and meta-analysis revealed a consistent, robust effect of infection, indicating a threefold increase in mortality among the infected group of honeybee workers (hazard ratio for infected individuals = 3.16 [1.97–5.07] and 2.99 [2.36–3.79] in the experiment and meta-analysis, respectively). However, the meta-analysis also indicated high heterogeneity in the effect magnitude, which was not explained by our moderators. Furthermore, there was a serious risk of bias within studies and potential publication bias across studies. The findings underscore knowledge gaps in the literature. It is stressed that laboratory cage trials should be viewed as an initial step in evaluating the impact of Nosema on mortality and that complementary field and apiary studies are essential for identifying effective treatments to preserve honeybee populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".