A scoping review of applied tick control research in North America: funding, implementation, and advancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geographic ranges of ticks and tick-borne pathogens within North America are shifting due to environmental changes and human-driven activities, with species of public health concern presenting a multifaceted risk to human health. Innovative strategies and continued collaboration to control tick populations are needed to combat this growing threat. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to describe the nature of applied tick control research conducted in North America (Canada, Mexico, and the United States) to date, with the goal of describing key concepts and identifying gaps in this research area. A total of 244 articles met our inclusion criteria and were reviewed for patterns in applied tick control authorship and funding, study location, target species, and control methodology. Most studies (83.6%) were conducted exclusively in the United States and 75% focused on ticks of public health concern, principally Amblyomma americanum (Linnaeus, Acari: Ixodidae), Dermacentor variabilis (Say, Acari: Ixodidae), Ixodes scapularis Say (Acari: Ixodidae), and Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Latreille, Acari: Ixodidae). The majority of funding was provided through US federal agencies, predominantly the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United States Department of Agriculture. Ixodes scapularis was the target of over 50% of identified articles, with the majority of research conducted within 3 states in the Northeast region of the U.S. Only 8.2% of included studies evaluated integrated tick management interventions. We note gaps in tick control research regarding (i) non-Ixodes medically relevant tick species, (ii) endemic range coverage, and (iii) control methodologies evaluated.
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 | 0.039 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".