A multi-assay assessment of insecticide resistance in Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) informs a decision-making framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insecticide resistance (IR) is an increasing problem globally, making control of vector-borne diseases more difficult. Reduced susceptibility to permethrin in Culex pipiens, an important vector for West Nile virus, has been reported across the US based on a standardized laboratory method: the CDC bottle bioassay. This bioassay uses a rapid phenotypic outcome to reveal evidence for IR, but how this translates to the effectiveness of formulated products used in an operational setting is unclear. Therefore, other methods for IR monitoring are recommended to quantify IR or evaluate formulated products against field populations in real-world conditions. To compare some of the available methods, we collected populations of Cx. pipiens from six sites in the Northwest Mosquito Abatement District (Cook Co., Illinois), and used a susceptible laboratory strain of Cx. pipiens as a control, to test for IR to pyrethroids using CDC bottle bioassays, caged field trials, and topical applications. CDC bottle bioassays suggested that Cx. pipiens from this area exhibit IR to both etofenprox and Sumithrin®. Caged field trials with ultra-low volume Anvil® 10 + 10 (Sumithrin®) demonstrated resistance to the product and underscored the need for inclusion of a susceptible control to differentiate IR from inadequate product distribution. Topical applications revealed low to high levels of resistance to synergized and unsynergized pyrethroids (etofenprox, Sumithrin®, and deltamethrin) in all field populations. Based on these data, we provide a new decision-making tree for mosquito control professionals which will guide selection of the most optimal assay for IR surveillance based on their goals, needs, and resources.
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 | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".