Onychomycosis in the 21st Century: An Update on Diagnosis, Epidemiology, and Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Onychomycosis accounts for 50% of all nail disease cases and is commonly caused by dermatophytes. Diabetes, human immunodeficiency virus, immunosuppression, obesity, smoking, and advancing age are predisposing factors of this fungal infection. Potassium hydroxide and culture are considered the current standard for diagnosing onychomycosis, revealing both fungal viability and species identification. Other diagnostic tests currently available include periodic acid-Schiff staining, polymerase chain reaction techniques, and fluorescent staining. Across 6 recently published epidemiology studies, the global prevalence of onychomycosis was estimated to be 5.5%, falling within the range of previously reported estimates (2%-8%). Newly approved onychomycosis treatments include efinaconazole, tavaborole, and laser therapy with lasers only approved to temporarily increase the amount of clear nail. Additional onychomycosis treatments being investigated include iontophoresis and photodynamic therapy with small open-label studies reported thus far. Preventative strategies, to help decrease recurrence and reinfection rates, include sanitisation of footwear and prophylactic topical antifungal agents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".