The Ecological Factors Associated With the Survival, Establishment, and Movement of <i>Aedes aegypti</i> and <i>Ae. albopictus</i> : A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus are mosquito species of public health significance and collectively responsible for the transmission of several arboviruses. Ongoing climatic changes are anticipated to have impacts on their survival, establishment, and movement. A scoping review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extensions for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) guidelines to describe the current state of literature on ecological factors impacting Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus survival, establishment, and movement. The literature search was conducted on May 25th, 2023, and updated on October 2nd, 2024. The databases searched were CAB Direct (CABI), Web of Science, PubMed, and Agricola. Primary research articles available in English or French were eligible for inclusion. After de‐duplication, 2471 articles were included in level one screening. A total of 580 articles were included in level two screening, and 359 articles were eligible for data extraction. Of the included articles, 124 examined Ae. aegypti , 128 examined Ae. albopictus , and 107 investigated both species. The ecological factors most reported were temperature ( n = 186) and precipitation ( n = 111). Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus survival, dispersal, and oviposition were found to be higher in areas with warmer temperatures and greater precipitation. The majority of articles did not report values for ecological thresholds, i.e., climate change and environmental values beyond which these mosquito populations are not present, as traits are not expressed. This knowledge gap can hinder future studies attempting to forecast the range expansion of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus .
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".