Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiology of West Nile Virus in Connecticut: A Five-Year Analysis of Mosquito Data 1999–2003

Andreadis, Theodore G., Anderson, John F., Vossbrinck, Charles R., Main, Andrew J.·2004·Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases

Abstract

Two hundred and ten isolations of West Nile virus (WNV) were obtained from 17 mosquito species in six genera in statewide surveillance conducted in Connecticut from June through October, 1999-2003. Culex pipiens (86), Culex salinarius (32), Culex restuans (26), Culiseta melanura (32), and Aedes vexans (12) were implicated as the most likely vectors of WNV in the region based on virus isolation data. Culex pipiens was abundant from July through September and is likely involved in early season enzootic transmission and late season epizootic amplification of the virus in wild bird populations. Epidemic transmission of WNV to humans in urban locales is probable. The abundance of Cx. restuans in June and July and isolations of WNV in early July suggest that this species may play an important role as an enzootic vector involved in early amplification of WNV virus among wild birds. Its involvement as a bridge vector to humans is unlikely. Culex salinarius was the most frequently captured Culex species and was abundant in August and September when virus activity was at its height. Frequent isolations of WNV from this species in September when the majority of human cases were reported in union with its abundance at this time of the year, demonstrated vector competence, and broad feeding habits, make Cx. salinarius a likely bridge vector to humans, horses and other mammals. Multiple isolations WNV from Cs. melanura collected in more rural locales in late August and September, provide supportive evidence to suggest that this predominant avian feeder may play a significant role in epizootic amplification of the virus among wild bird populations in these environs. Aedes vexans was the only species of Aedes or Ochlerotatus from which multiple isolations of WNV were made in more than one year and was among the most frequently trapped and abundant species throughout the season. Since Ae. vexans predominately feeds on mammals it is unlikely to play a significant role in epizootic amplification of WNV, however, because of its abundance and aggressive mammalian and human biting behavior it must receive strong consideration as a bridge vector to humans and horses. The occasional virus isolations obtained from Aedes cinereus (4), Uranotaenia sapphirina (3), Ochlerotatus canadensis (2), Ochlerotatus trivittatus (2), Ochlerotatus sollicitans (2), Ochlerotatus sticticus (2), Psorophora ferox (2), Anopheles punctipennis, Anopheles walkeri, Ochlerotatus cantator, Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus, and Ochlerotatus triseriatus in conjunction with their inefficient vector competency and host feeding preferences indicate that these species likely play a very minor role in either the enzootic maintenance or epizootic transmission of WNV in this region. The principal foci of WNV activity in Connecticut were identified as densely populated (>3,000 people/mi2) residential communities in coastal Fairfield and New Haven Counties, and in the case of 2002, similar locales in proximity of the city of Hartford in central Hartford County. In almost all instances we observed a correlation both temporally and spatially between the isolation of WNV from field-collected mosquitoes and subsequent human cases in these locales. In most years the incidence of human cases closely paralleled the number of virus isolations made from mosquitoes with both peaks falling in early September. We conclude that the isolation of WNV from field-collected mosquitoes is a sensitive indicator of virus activity that is associated with the risk of human infection that habitually extends from early August through the end of October in Connecticut.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/vbz.2004.4.360

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 262

Metadata

Authors
Andreadis, T. G., Anderson, J. F., Vossbrinck, C. R., & Main, A. J.
Venue
Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases
Published
2004-12
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
360-378
ISSN
  • 1530-3667 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7759
OpenAlex
W2082000298
Cited by
262
References
34
FWCI
14.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Epidemiology of West Nile Virus in Connecticut: A Five-Year Analysis of Mosquito Data 1999–2003. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/vbz.2004.4.360
The paper
Andreadis, T. G., Anderson, J. F., Vossbrinck, C. R., & Main, A. J. (2004). Epidemiology of West Nile Virus in Connecticut: A Five-Year Analysis of Mosquito Data 1999–2003. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2004.4.360

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.