Sanitization of Contaminated Footwear from Onychomycosis Patients Using Ozone Gas: A Novel Adjunct Therapy for Treating Onychomycosis and Tinea Pedis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ozone gas possesses antimicrobial properties against bacteria, viruses, and yeasts. Previously, we demonstrated the efficacy of ozone in killing ATCC strains of the dermatophyte fungi Trichophyton rubrum and Trichophyton mentagrophytes. OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of ozone gas in sanitizing onychomycosis patient footwear contaminated with fungal material as a means of minimizing the risk of reinfection. METHODS: Swabs of footwear from onychomycosis patients were cultured prior to and after ozone exposure to test the ability of ozone to sanitize these items. RESULTS: We identified contamination of footwear from most onychomycosis patients, a potential source of reinfection in these individuals. Furthermore, ozone gas was effective in sanitizing contaminated footwear. CONCLUSION: Ozone gas is effective in sanitizing footwear and represents a novel adjunct therapy to be used in conjunction with antifungal medications and/or devices to better treat onychomycosis and tinea pedis patients in both the short and the long term.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".