Management of tinea capitis in Israel: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tinea capitis is a common fungal infection in Israel, most commonly caused by the dermatophyte Trichophyton tonsurans. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of oral antifungal monotherapy in producing clinical or complete cure. We also evaluated the impact of topical therapy (bifonazole 1% shampoo and/or betamethasone valerate 0.1% solution), prior to oral treatment, on patients' likelihood of clinical or complete cure. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted. Patients with mycologically confirmed tinea capitis were treated with one of four regimens: (1) terbinafine (greater than 40 kg: 250 mg/day, 20 to 40 kg: 125 mg/day, less than 20 kg: 62.5 mg/day), (2) itraconazole 5 mg/kg daily, (3) fluconazole 6 mg/kg daily, or (4) griseofulvin 20 mg/kg daily. We used generalized linear models (GLM) to determine whether there was a significant association between the odds of cure and choice of treatment. RESULTS: The causative species was Trichophyton tonsurans in all but 6 cases that grew T violaceum. For pediatric patients, the odds of having complete or clinical cure within 6 weeks was greater if they used terbinafine compared to itraconazole, fluconazole, or griseofulvin (odds ratio [OR] = 9.06, P = .047). The likelihood of complete or clinical cure within 8 weeks of oral therapy was lower if topical steroids were previously used compared to if topical antifungals were used prior to systemic treatment (OR = 0.29, P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings substantiate prior literature demonstrating that terbinafine is non-inferior to griseofulvin, itraconazole, and fluconazole in the therapy of pediatric tinea capitis caused by T tonsurans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".