Toenail Onychomycosis—A Canadian Approach With a New Transungual Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Onychomycosis is a difficult-to-treat infection whose current treatment paradigm relies primarily on oral antifungals. The emergence of new topical drugs broadens the therapeutic options and prompts a re-evaluation of the current Canadian treatment strategy. OBJECTIVE: To define a patient-centred Canadian treatment strategy for onychomycosis. METHODS: An expert panel of doctors who treat onychomycosis was convened. A systematic review of the literature on treatments for onychomycosis was conducted. Based on the results, a survey was designed to determine a consensus treatment system. RESULTS: First-line therapy should be selected based on nail plate involvement, with terbinafine for severe onychomycosis (>60% involvement), terbinafine or efinaconazole for moderate onychomycosis (20%-60% involvement), and efinaconazole for mild onychomycosis (<20% involvement). Comorbidities, patient preference and adherence, or nail thickness may result in the use of alternative oral or topical antifungals. CONCLUSION: These guidelines allow healthcare providers and patients to make informed choices about preventing and treating onychomycosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".