A Systematic Review of Aircraft Disinsection Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disinsection of aircraft and other conveyances is recommended to prevent the international spread of disease-carrying mosquitoes. A systematic review synthesized the effectiveness of adult mosquito disinsection aboard international air, marine, and land conveyances, using literature available up to 31 May 2025. Nineteen experimental trials, nine of which included an unexposed control arm, were synthesized. The studies were generally of poor quality with high risk of bias, and adherence to WHO guidelines was 33.30% (range: 18.20-60.5%). Across comparator trials of aircraft disinsection, the odds of mosquito mortality in the treated groups compared to control groups was 163.60 (95% CI 147-182), and the relative risk of mosquito death was 14.24 (95% CI 12.99-15.63). The direction of effect was consistent across mosquito species, methods of disinsection, types of aircraft, and insecticides, though the magnitude of the effect varied widely. The only WHO-recommended insecticide tested in a controlled trial was 2% d-phenothrin, which demonstrated an odds ratio of 171.70 (95% CI 139.10-212) and a relative risk of 20.08 (95% CI 16.53-24.43) for mosquito mortality. The lack of adherence to WHO guidelines raises uncertainty about the real-world effectiveness of disinsection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".