A Systematic Review of Aircraft Disinsection Safety, Toxicity, and Tolerability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment of aircraft with insecticide in a procedure referred to as 'disinsection' is recommended to prevent the conveyance of arthropod vectors internationally and to mitigate the globalization of vector-borne infectious diseases. However, the full spectrum of human-based outcomes related to disinsection of conveyances has not been recently synthesized. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the human safety and toxicity of insecticides used during the process of disinsecting international aircraft, marine vessels, rail, and ground transportation of mosquitoes. The systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024543998). The certainty of the evidence was rated, and key primary outcomes, including human health effects of conveyance disinsection, were synthesized. A total of 21 studies that described human health effects of conveyance disinsection and reported outcomes of safety, toxicity, and tolerability were included, and were of generally limited quality and high risk of bias, with low to very low certainty of estimates of effect. No high-quality studies investigating the safety, toxicity, or tolerability of disinsection were identified. Human health effects, including morbidity, including work days lost, adverse events including hospitalization, objective measures of insecticide toxicity, detectable and elevated urinary metabolites, and subjective reporting of symptoms consistent with acute insecticide poisoning, were reported by the small number of uncontrolled observational studies and public health surveillance reports included. Given the reports of significant morbidity, adverse events, and toxicity putatively attributable to aircraft disinsection, well-designed studies in exposed populations investigating the full range of human health impacts of disinsection on passengers and crew are urgently needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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".