A review of the leishmanin skin test: A neglected test for a neglected disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The leishmanin skin test (LST) has been used for decades to detect exposure and immunity to the parasite Leishmania, the causative agent of the neglected tropical disease leishmaniasis. In the LST, Leishmania antigen (leishmanin) is intradermally injected into the forearm. In an individual who has been previously infected, a delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) reaction results in a measurable induration at the site of the injection, indicating that previous exposure to Leishmania has resulted in the development of cell-mediated immunity. LST positivity is associated with long-lasting protective immunity against reinfection, most notably as reported for visceral leishmaniasis (VL). Despite efforts over the past few decades, leishmanin antigen is no longer produced under good manufacturing practice (GMP) conditions anywhere in the world. Consequently, the use of the LST in epidemiological studies has declined in favor of serological and molecular tests. In this review, we provide a historical overview of the LST and justification for the reintroduction of leishmanin. A GMP-grade leishmanin can be used to detect immunity in vivo by the LST and can be investigated for use in an interferon-γ release assay (IGRA), which may serve as an in vitro version of the LST. The LST will be a valuable tool for surveillance and epidemiological studies in support of the VL elimination programs and as a surrogate marker of immunity in vaccine clinical trials. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted using PubMed as the primary database, with MeSH terms "leishmanin skin test" OR "Montenegro test" OR "Montenegro skin test." Articles written in English that describe the history or standardization of leishmanin, the use of leishmanin in an IGRA, or the use of the LST in epidemiological studies or vaccine trials were prioritized in our appraisal of the literature.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".