Prevalence and Epidemiology of Onychomycosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of onychomycosis has been estimated at approximately 6.48% (95% confidence interval 6.09–6.88%) within the Canadian population. Dermatophytes are the most commonly cultured organisms, appearing in approximately 75 to 91% of nails with fungal involvement, with Trichophyton rubrum and Tricophyton mentagrophytes most commonly isolated. However, Candida spp and nondermatophyte molds are also sometimes cultured. The most common presentation is distal and lateral subungual onychomycosis (DLSO), which can involve 75% of patients with pedal onychomycosis. The distribution of DLSO, superficial white onychomycosis, and proximal subungual onychomycosis (PSO) has been reported to be 360:59:1 in patients with mycologic confirmation of onychomycosis; however, some reported that the incidence of PSO is slightly higher in immunocompromised individuals. Age, gender, family history, and the presence of tinea pedis are all elements associated with a nail fungal infection. In addition, many conditions, including diabetes mellitus, immune disorders, and vascular disease, have been associated with the presence of onychomycosis. When choosing the best treatment regimen for individuals with onychomycosis, it is very important to consider all of the factors involved, including the infecting species, the presentation of the disease, the level of disease progression, and its predisposing factors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".