Evaluation of a Microculture Method for Isolation of <i>Leishmania</i> Parasites from Cutaneous Lesions of Patients in Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional culture of Leishmania spp. is labor intensive and has poor sensitivity. We evaluated a microculture method for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in consecutive patients presenting to the Leishmaniasis Clinic at the Instituto de Medicina Tropical Alexander von Humboldt, Peru, for evaluation of skin lesions. Lesion aspirates were cultured in duplicate and parallel in traditional culture tubes containing modified Novy-MacNeal-Nicolle (NNN) medium or Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium 1640 with 10% fetal bovine serum (10% RPMI) and in 70-microl capillary tubes containing a mixture of lesion aspirate and 10% RPMI. For sensitivity analysis, the consensus standard was considered to be a positive result in any two of the following four tests: Giemsa-stained lesion smear, culture, kinetoplast DNA PCR, or leishmanin skin test. The outcome measures were sensitivity and time to culture positivity. Forty-five patients with 62 skin lesions were enrolled in the study, of which 53 lesions fulfilled the consensus criteria for a final diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Of these 53 lesions, 39 were culture positive: 38 in capillary tubes, 29 in traditional culture tubes with modified NNN medium, and 19 in traditional culture tubes with 10% RPMI medium. The sensitivity of microculture was 71.7%, versus 54.7% for traditional culture with NNN (P, 0.038) and 35.8% with 10% RPMI (P, <0.001). The mean times to culture positivity were 4.2 days by microculture, 5.2 days in NNN, and 6 days in 10% RPMI (P, 0.009). We have demonstrated that microculture is a more sensitive and time-efficient means of isolating Leishmania parasites from cutaneous lesions than traditional culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".