Molecular Determination of Mixed Infections of Dermatophytes and Nondermatophyte Moulds in individuals with Onychomycosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Reports of mixed infections with NDMs and dermatophytes in onychomycosis are rare, possibly due to the inhibition of NDM growth during traditional culture. Objective: To determine the prevalence of mixed infections in onychomycosis using molecular identification. Methods: Molecular analyses were utilised to identify infecting organisms directly from at least two serial great toenail samples from each of the 44 subjects. Results: Mixed infections were present in 41% (18/44) of the subjects. A single co-infecting NDM was the most common mixed infection and was detected in 34% (15/44) of onychomycosis patients, with F. oxysporum present in 14% (6/44), S. brevicaulis in 9% (4/44), Acremonium spp in 2% (1/44), Aspergillus spp. in 4.5% (2/44) and Scytalidium spp. in 4.5% (2/44) of patients. Mixed infections with two NDMs were found in 7% (3/44) of the subjects. Conclusions: Mixed dermatophyte/NDM onychomycosis infections may be more prevalent than previously reported.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".