Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Onychomycosis has several clinical presentations and is caused by various infectious organisms. OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for selection of appropriate treatment. METHODS: The literature on onychomycosis management was reviewed to generate an evidence-based decision tree. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Several options are available: terbinafine, itraconazole, fluconazole, ciclopirox 8% nail lacquer, efinaconazole 10% nail solution, and laser therapy. Further studies on lasers are needed before use can be recommended. Nondermatophyte molds or mixed infection can be managed with terbinafine or itraconazole with or without topicals. Itraconazole, fluconazole, and efinaconazole can be used for Candida infection. For dermatophytes, topicals can be considered for mild to moderate onychomycosis. For moderate to severe cases, any oral monotherapy can be used; however, we suggest terbinafine if there is a possibility of a drug interaction. These recommendations can be applied for all ages, immune function, or metabolic status, but proper monitoring and contraindications should be taken into consideration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".