MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177075790 · doi:10.1111/ijd.15739

One size does not fit all: the need for individualized treatment based on factors that may affect the therapeutic outcome of efinaconazole 10% solution for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis

2021· review· en· W3177075790 on OpenAlexaff
Aditya K. Gupta, M. Venkataraman, Naveen Anbalagan, Eric Guenin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Dermatology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNail Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMediprobe Research (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAffect (linguistics)RegimenDiseaseQuality of life (healthcare)DermatophyteBody mass indexNail diseaseClinical trialInternal medicineDermatologyComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful management of onychomycosis is a challenge because cure rates with most antifungals are relatively low and recurrence rates are high. A drug-based approach by treating the nail alone may not suffice. There are several host-related factors (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], and patient's quality of life), disease-related factors (disease severity, duration, and the number of toenails affected), and comorbidities (tinea pedis and diabetes) that may affect treatment efficacy. Here, we review the post hoc analyses of the phase III trials of efinaconazole 10% solution that have investigated the impact of these factors on topical therapy for toenail onychomycosis. The significant clinical variables that may affect the efficacy of efinaconazole include sex, BMI, disease severity, disease duration, and tinea pedis. As older patients may have slower toenail growth and more severe, longstanding disease compared with younger patients, they may require longer treatment duration, beyond the 48-week standard regimen. Treatment compliance may need to be discussed for an improved health outcome. Therefore, these prognostic factors need to be carefully evaluated, which may aid in formulating individualized therapy to maximize treatment success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of DermatologySame topicNail Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207