Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, Diagnostic Work Up, and Treatment Options of Leishmania Infection in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
infection after kidney transplantation (KT) is limited. In order to offer a comprehensive guide for the management of post-transplant Leishmaniasis, we performed a systematic review following the latest PRISMA Checklist and using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase as databases. No time restrictions were applied, including all English-edited articles on Leishmaniasis in KT recipients. Selected items were assessed for methodological quality using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Given the nature and quality of the studies (case reports and retrospective uncontrolled case series), data could not be meta-analyzed. A descriptive summary was therefore provided. Eventually, we selected 70 studies, describing a total of 159 cases of Leishmaniasis. Most of the patients were adult, male, and Caucasian. Furthermore, they were frequently living or travelling to endemic regions. The onset of the disease was variable, but more often in the late transplant course. The clinical features were basically similar to those reported in the general population. However, a generalized delay in diagnosis and treatment could be detected. Bone marrow aspiration was the preferred diagnostic modality. The main treatment options included pentavalent antimonial and liposomal amphotericin B, both showing mixed results. Overall, the outcomes appeared as concerning, with several patients dying or losing their transplant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".