Onychomycosis in children: Safety and efficacy of antifungal agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Onychomycosis is an uncommon condition in childhood, but prevalence in children is increasing worldwide.The objective was to review the efficacy and safety of systemic and topical antifungal agents to treat onychomycosis in children. Databases (Pubmed, OVID, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library) were searched. Seven studies were selected for inclusion. Only one was a randomized controlled trial. In total, 208 children were administered antifungal agents for the treatment of onychomycosis. Four reports of mild adverse events were documented (1.9% of treated children), one of which discontinued treatment (0.5%). Limitations of this review are the lack of randomized controlled trials available in pediatric onychomycosis. These findings suggest that antifungal therapies used to treat onychomycosis in children are associated with a low incidence of adverse events. Current dosing regimens for antifungal drugs are effective and appear safe to use in children, notwithstanding that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved any of these agents for the treatment of onychomycosis in children. To our knowledge, this review is the most up-to-date, comprehensive summary of pediatric onychomycosis treatment.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".