Comparison of Superficial Mycosis treatment using Butenafine and Bifonazole nitrate Clinical Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superficial fungal infections are commonly encountered by the physician. And the continuously changing epidemiology of invasive fungal infections results in the need for an expanded armamentarium of antifungal therapies. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Butenafine (BTF) versus Bifonazole (BFZ) in the treatment of superficial mycosis in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Of 96 patients, 48 applied (BTF) cream and 48 applied (BFZ) cream for 2 weeks to tinea versicolor, corporis and cruris treat, while tinea of feet & hands was treated for 4 weeks duration. Efficacy was assessed after the end of treatment and 2 weeks later. At the end of therapy, we find somewhat more patients using (BTF) than using (BFZ) had a mycologic cure ((BTF), 87.5%; (BFZ) 83.3%) and effective clinical response ((BTF), 91.7%; (BFZ), 83.3%). (BTF) provides rapid and persistent antifungal activity and symptom relief in patients with superficial mycosis during treatment. And patients continued to improve for at least 2 weeks after treatment. The Rates of mycologic cure and effective treatment with (BTF) were higher than with (BFZ) at cessation of treatment and 2 weeks later. However, no significant difference found between the two drugs (p> 0.05).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".