Comparison of efficacy criteria across onychomycosis trials: need for standardization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The last 10 years have seen a substantial increase in the number of studies reporting the efficacy of the various antifungal agents used to treat onychomycosis. AIM: To examine the definitions of efficacy parameters reported in clinical studies on the treatment of onychomycosis and discuss the importance of standardized reporting. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1966-2001) for studies in which oral treatments, griseofulvin, ketoconazole, terbinafine (continuous and pulse), itraconazole (continuous and pulse), and fluconazole, were used to treat dermatophyte onychomycosis. RESULTS: Mycologic cure was predominantly defined as negative microscopy and culture. Unlike mycologic cure, clinical parameters (e.g. clinical response, clinical cure) were variably defined. Subjective terms, such as "cure" or "markedly improved," were used; although these terms appear to be explicit, what is considered to be "cured" or "markedly improved" by one evaluator may not be by another. Also, infected nails were clinically evaluated to determine the response to treatment. Studies measured the distance between the proximal nail fold and a notch in the nail plate, at the junction between the diseased and normal-appearing nail, or in some cases estimated the diseased nail plate involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This review of the literature on systemic agents used to treat onychomycosis shows that standard and explicit definitions are required for the accurate comparison of the effectiveness of the various therapies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".