MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A quantitative study of epidermal Langerhans cells in cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by <i>Leishmania tropica</i>

2004· article· en· W2026162282 on OpenAlexaff
Simin Shamsi Meymandi, Shahriar Dabiri, Darya Dabiri, Richard I. Crawford, Arsalan Kharazmi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Dermatology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCutaneous leishmaniasisLeishmaniasisMedicineLangerhans cellLeishmaniaScarsAntigenPathologyPopulationDermatologyImmunologyParasite hosting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the number and distribution of epidermal Langerhans cells in different clinical forms of dry-type cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). METHODS: Sixteen cases of dry-type cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania tropica were studied. These cases were classified clinically as five cases of acute leishmaniasis with indurated papules, nodules and plaques with central crust formation and duration < 2 years, six cases of lupoid leishmaniasis with characteristic papules around previous scars of cutaneous leishmaniasis with duration > 2 years, and five cases of chronic nonlupoid type with nonhealing lesions of duration > 2 years. Paraffin-embedded blocks were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and stained immunohistochemically for CD1a. RESULTS: The number of Langerhans cells per millimeter length of epidermis was increased in acute cases compared to chronic and lupoid cases. CONCLUSIONS: Lesions of acute leishmaniasis contain the greatest amounts of antigen for presentation, so Langerhans cells increase in number and in trafficking to present antigens derived from Leishman bodies to the cellular immune system. In chronic leishmaniasis, the Langerhans cell population is reduced, perhaps because of exhaustion of the source of Langerhans cells, or because of reduced response to modified antigen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of DermatologySame topicResearch on Leishmaniasis StudiesFrench-language works237,207