A nitric oxide-releasing solution as a potential treatment for fungi associated with tinea pedis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test a nitric oxide-releasing solution (NORS) as a potential antifungal footbath therapy against Trichophyton mentagrophytes and Trichophyton rubrum during the mycelial and conidial phases. METHODS AND RESULTS: NORS (sodium nitrite citric acid) produces nitric oxide verified by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Antifungal activity of this solution was tested against mycelia and conidia of T. mentagrophytes and T. rubrum, using 1-20 mmol l(-1) nitrites and 10-30 min exposure times. The direct effect of the gas released from the solution on the viability of those fungi was tested. NORS demonstrated strong antifungal activity and was found to be dose and time dependent. NO and nitrogen dioxide (NO(2) ) were the only gases detected from this reaction and are likely responsible for the antifungal effect. CONCLUSIONS: This in vitro research suggests that a single 20-min exposure to NORS could potentially be used as an effective single-dose treatment against fungi that are associated with tinea pedis in both mycelia and spore phase. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This study provides the background for developing a user-friendly footbath treatment for Athlete's Foot that will kill both vegetative fungi and its spores.
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".