Tinea manus treated with 1‐week itraconazole vs. terbinafine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A double‐blind, prospective, comparative, randomized study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of itraconazole (pulse) given for 1 week against a 2‐week course of terbinafine (continuous) for the treatment of tinea manus. The inclusion criteria were that the clinical diagnosis of tinea manus had to be confirmed by positive mycologic examination (KOH). Individuals had to be 18 years or older and in good general health. Patients with a sensitivity to imidazole or the allylamine derivative were excluded, as were subjects participating in any other investigational drug study within 4 weeks prior to the start of the trial. Other exclusion criteria included women who were pregnant, lactating, or in whom there was a lack of adequate contraception. Patients with a history of chronic liver disease were also excluded, as were individuals with a tinea infection at another anatomic site. Patients receiving any agents known to have an interaction with either itraconazole or terbinafine, including rifampin, phenytoin, digoxin, warfarin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, simvastatin, and lovastatin, were excluded from the study. The patients must not have received systemic antifungal or corticosteroid therapy for at least 30 days, or applied topical antifungals or corticosteroids for at least 14 days, prior to the onset of the study. Patients were withdrawn from the study if a serious adverse event occurred which, in the opinion of the investigator or participant, merited discontinuation from the trial, if the randomization code was broken, or if the subject withdrew consent. Patients were evaluated at baseline, week 1, week 2 (end of double‐blind treatment phase), and week 6 from the start of treatment. The primary efficacy measure was the mycologic cure rate (negative light microscopic examination and culture, or one test negative and the other not positive). The secondary assessment included the clinical global evaluation: healed (absence of signs and symptoms), markedly improved (≥ 50% clinical improvement), considerable residual lesions (< 50% clinical improvement), no change, or worsening. The three symptoms that were evaluated were desquamation, erythema, and pruritus. The severity of the symptoms was graded as: absent, 0; mild, 1; moderate, 2; severe, 3. Clinical success was defined as occurring when patients were healed or markedly improved. Any adverse event that occurred was recorded. The study was approved by an ethical committee and informed consent was obtained from each patient.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".