ArticlePloS one2020
Trials of the Automated Particle Counter for laboratory rearing of mosquito larvae.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a means of obtaining reproducible and accurate numbers of larvae for laboratory rearing, we tested a large-particle flow-cytometer type device called the 'Automated Particle Counter' (APC). The APC is a gravity-fed, self-contained unit that detects changes in light intensity caused by larvae passing the detector in a water stream and controls dispensing by stopping the flow when the desired number has been reached. We determined the accuracy (number dispensed compared to the target value) and precision (distribution of number dispensed) of dispensing at a variety of counting sensitivity thresholds and larva throughput rates (larvae per second) using < 1-day old Anopheles gambiae and Aedes aegypti larvae. All measures were made using an APC algorithm called the 'Smoothed Z-Score' which allows the user to define how many standard deviations (Z scores) from the baseline light intensity a particle's absorbance must exceed to register a count. We dispensed a target number of 100 An. gambiae larvae using Z scores from 2.5-8 and observed no difference among them in the numbers dispensed for scores from 2.5-6, however, scores of 7 and 8 under-counted (over-dispensed) larvae. Using a Z score ≤ 6, we determined the effect of throughput rate on the accuracy of the device to dispense An. gambiae larvae. For rates ≤ 98 larvae per second, the accuracy of dispensing a target of 100 larvae was - 2.29% ± 0.72 (95% CI of the mean) with a mode of 99 (49 of 348 samples). When using a Z score of 3.5 and rates ≤ 100 larvae per second, the accuracy of dispensing a target of 100 Ae. aegypti was - 2.43% ± 1.26 (95% CI of the mean) with a mode of 100 (6 of 42 samples). No effect on survival was observed on the number of An. gambiae first stage larvae that reached adulthood as a function of dispensing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.