MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899811717 · doi:10.1080/14787210.2018.1544891

Update on current approaches to diagnosis and treatment of onychomycosis

2018· review· en· W2899811717 on OpenAlexaff
Aditya K. Gupta, Rachel Mays, Sarah G. Versteeg, Neil H. Shear, Vincent Piguet

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anti-infective Therapy · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNail Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreMediprobe Research (Canada)Women's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)Intensive care medicineMedicineDermatologyMedical physicsEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Onychomycosis is a chronic fungal infection of the nail bed, matrix or plate. It accounts for roughly 50% of all nail disease. As the prevalence of onychomycosis is increasing, a critical review of diagnostic techniques and treatment options is required. Areas covered: This review discusses the current diagnostic techniques associated with diagnosing onychomycosis, such as microscopy, culture, periodic acid Schiff stain (PAS) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Oral and topical therapies are also discussed, as well as, the utility of device-based treatments and combination therapy. Expert commentary: Culture for the diagnosis of onychomycosis is the gold standard; however, PCR is more sensitive and should be considered. In general, topical treatments are recommended for mild to moderate disease and oral treatments should be considered for moderate to severe disease. Combination therapy and device-based treatments may enhance cure rates, further study is required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anti-infective TherapySame topicNail Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207