Percentage accuracy of the NIRS technique for predicting the age of mixed- <i>Anopheles</i> spp at each treatment level correctly as <7 or ≥7 d old.

<p>Percentage accuracy of the NIRS technique for predicting the age of mixed- <i>Anopheles</i> spp at each treatment level correctly as <7 or ≥7 d old.</p

Frequency (%) age distribution of wild insecticide-resistant and susceptible mosquitoes, as predicted by NIRS, on a continuous age scale.

<p>Frequency (%) age distribution of wild insecticide-resistant and susceptible mosquitoes, as predicted by NIRS, on a continuous age scale.</p

NIRS age predictions for A. resistant and B. susceptible laboratory reared <i>Anopheles</i> spp after 24-hr holding period post insecticide exposure.

<p>NIRS predictions that differ significantly between the different age groups at the 0.05 level are marked with a different letter. Mean age predictions are indicated by a red line.</p

NIRS age prediction accuracy of mixed-<i>Anopheles</i> spp by age and treatment at different precision levels.

<p>Accuracy is shown for mosquitoes reared from wild larvae that were either untreated or treated with lambda-cyhalothrin. Mosquito categories that were treated include those that were resistant and those that were susceptible. Mosquitoes that were used as controls are also shown.</p>a<p>Mosquitoes that died during the 24-hr holding period. Their actual ages are assumed to be 0.5 d older than the time of exposure. ^bRange into which all mosquitoes in each age group were predicted.</p

Two-dimensional plot of clusters using absorbances at 500 nm and 501 nm, when number of mosquitoes per age was not controlled.

<p>Two-dimensional plot of clusters using absorbances at 500 nm and 501 nm, when number of mosquitoes per age was not controlled.</p

Number of mosquitoes in clusters when 80 spectra collected from wild mosquitoes were randomly selected and maintained for the rest of the analysis, while changing the age of the laboratory-reared mosquitoes.

<p>Number of mosquitoes in clusters when 80 spectra collected from wild mosquitoes were randomly selected and maintained for the rest of the analysis, while changing the age of the laboratory-reared mosquitoes.</p

Interpretation of the silhouette values for partitioning methods.

<p>Interpretation of the silhouette values for partitioning methods.</p

Box plots of silhouette coefficients and bar graphs of percentage of mosquitoes, respectively, showing the quality and distribution of laboratory-reared and wild mosquitoes in clusters after <i>k</i>-means analysis.

<p>A and B, number of mosquitoes per age was not controlled (<i>p</i> = 0.01), C and D, age structure of laboratory-reared mosquitoes was standardized to match the published age structure of wild mosquitoes (<i>p</i> = 0.57), E and F, laboratory-reared mosquitoes at 3, 5, and 25-day old were not included in the analysis (<i>p</i> = 0.26). <i>P</i> stands for p value and N for the number of mosquitoes.</p

Illustration of the second method used to control number of mosquitoes per age during clustering approach two.

<p>Illustration of the second method used to control number of mosquitoes per age during clustering approach two.</p

Hierarchical tree and bar graphs showing distributions of laboratory-reared and wild mosquitoes in clusters formed by hierarchical cluster analysis.

<p>A and B, number of mosquitoes per age was not controlled (<i>p</i> < 0.01); C and D, the age structure of laboratory-reared mosquitoes was fit to an exponential decay distribution to match the published age structure of wild mosquitoes (<i>p</i> = 0.76); and E and F, laboratory-reared mosquitoes at 3, 5, and 25-day old were not included in the analysis (<i>p</i> = 0.13).</p