Reevaluating leishmanin skin test as a marker for immunity against cutaneous leishmaniasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The leishmanin skin test (LST) has been used for clinical diagnosis of leishmaniasis and epidemiological studies of the disease. Thus far, evidence has suggested that LST conversion indicates a degree of protection against leishmaniasis. In this study, we have put this assumption to test. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 273 participants with positive LST living in a hyperendemic area for leishmaniasis were followed for three years for any occurrence of cutaneous leishmaniasis. RESULTS: Twenty-two of the 273 participants contracted leishmaniasis during the 3-year follow-up. These new cases included participants who had a previous history of active disease, those who had a history of leishmanization, or those who were suspected of having a history of subclinical infection. DISCUSSION: In this study, the incidence of leishmaniasis in individuals with positive LST was close to the general incidence of the disease in the same hyperendemic area. These results suggest that although LST conversion may be a marker for partial immunity towards leishmaniasis, it may not, however, indicate complete protection against the disease, and consequently there is a need for revision of current vaccine development approaches which are based on rendering vaccinated individuals LST positive.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".