MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404435274 · doi:10.1177/20499361241274254

Challenges in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by <i>L. braziliensis</i> in four travelers: a case series

2024· article· en· W4404435274 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Moreira Sarmiento, Guy Crowder, Bonnie Meatherall, Jacob M. Bezemer, Aisha Mumtaz, Brittany Jackson, Juan David Ramírez, Alberto Paniz‐Mondolfi, Carlos Franco‐Paredes, Valida Bajrovic

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiltefosineMeglumine antimoniateCutaneous leishmaniasisMedicineLeishmaniasisDermatologyTropical diseaseLeishmaniaAmphotericin BNeglected tropical diseasesSurgeryAntifungalImmunologyVisceral leishmaniasisInternal medicineDiseaseParasite hosting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

infection in the Peruvian Amazon. Pentavalent antimonials are the preferred treatment option for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) in most endemic countries in Central and South America. However, we initially treated our patients with liposomal amphotericin B (LAB) and miltefosine since these are the only two available Food and Drug Administration approved drugs in the United States. Refractory disease was common as three of the four travelers required repeated courses of miltefosine and two also received LAB. One patient required intravenous therapy with meglumine antimoniate (NMG), and one received intralesional NMG. Given the increasing number of cases of CL identified in the United States, there is an urgent need for expanded access to pentavalent antimonials for treating leishmaniasis acquired in Central and South America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Advances in Infectious DiseaseSame topicResearch on Leishmaniasis StudiesFrench-language works237,207