Bibliographic record
Abstract
New therapies for onychomycosis continue to be developed, yet treatments are seldom directly compared in randomized controlled trials. The objective of this study was to compare the rates of mycological cure for oral and topical onychomycosis treatments using network meta-analysis. A systematic review of the literature on onychomycosis treatments published before March 25, 2013, was performed, and data were analyzed using network meta-analysis. Terbinafine, 250 mg, therapy was significantly superior to all treatments except itraconazole, 400 mg, pulse therapy; itraconazole, 200 mg, therapy was significantly superior to fluconazole and the topical treatments; and fluconazole, efinaconazole, ciclopirox, terbinafine nail solution, and amorolfine treatments were significantly superior to only placebo. These results support the superiority of 12-week continuous terbinafine, 250 mg, therapy and itraconazole, 400 mg, pulse therapy (1 week per month for 3 months) while suggesting the equivalence of topical therapies. These results reflect findings from the literature and treatment efficacy observed in clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".