Onychomycosis: strategies to improve efficacy and reduce recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungal infections may be difficult to treat for several reasons. It is important to obtain the correct diagnosis, and select the appropriate antifungal agent and route. General considerations that may be associated with recurrent infections are, a genetic predisposition and suboptimal bioavailability of drug, resulting in insufficient concentration at the target site. The aetiologic organism, the severity of disease, other coexisting diseases, concomitant drug intake, and the presence of fungal infection at other sites are some factors that determine the choice of antifungal therapy and its route of administration, oral vs. topical lacquer. Local factors such as the thickness of the nail, presence of lateral onychomycosis, longitudinal spike, dermatophytoma and severe onycholysis are some factors that may determine the choice of secondary measures such as mechanical or topical treatment. Booster or supplemental therapy may be of benefit when the response to initial treatment is poorer than expected and unlikely to result in complete response. Steps should be taken to reduce the possibility of recurrence once cure has been achieved.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".