Four Cutaneous Leishmaniosis Case Resistant to Meglumine Antimoniate Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by meglumine antimoniate resistant Leishmania major with Lucilia sericata larvae. METHODS: Samples obtained from patients'lesions were stained with Giemsa and examined under the microscope. The samples were also incubated to Novy-Nicolle-McNeal (NNN) and Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) 1640 media. ITS1 region real time PCR was performed for identfying the Leishmania species. The patients were treated using Glucantime® or liposomal amphotericin B or L. sericata larvae according to their response to the treatmet regimes. RESULTS: In the initial examination, amastigote forms of Leishmania were seen in the samples of all 4 patients under microscopic examination. Two of the patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis, which were caused by Glucantime resistant L. major were treated with liposomal amphotericin B, and two of them were treated with L. sericata larvae. Leishmania promastigotes were not grown in both cultures. CONCLUSION: Cutaneous leishmaniasis, which wascaused by Glucantime resistant L. major has been successfully treated with L. sericata larvae in a very short time, 10 days. PCR results from samples taken 2 months after the treatment were examined and the results were negative.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".