MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382400069 · doi:10.7573/dic.2023-5-1

Tinea pedis: an updated review

2023· review· en· W4382400069 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs in Context · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNail Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyTrichophyton rubrumTinea capitisAntifungalObservational studyDermatophytePopulationFluconazoleAntifungal drugsTrichophytonPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Tinea pedis is one of the most common superficial fungal infections of the skin, with various clinical manifestations. This review aims to familiarize physicians with the clinical features, diagnosis and management of tinea pedis. Methods: A search was conducted in April 2023 in PubMed Clinical Queries using the key terms 'tinea pedis' OR 'athlete's foot'. The search strategy included all clinical trials, observational studies and reviews published in English within the past 10 years. Results: . It is estimated that approximately 3% of the world population have tinea pedis. The prevalence is higher in adolescents and adults than in children. The peak age incidence is between 16 and 45 years of age. Tinea pedis is more common amongst males than females. Transmission amongst family members is the most common route, and transmission can also occur through indirect contact with contaminated belongings of the affected patient. Three main clinical forms of tinea pedis are recognized: interdigital, hyperkeratotic (moccasin-type) and vesiculobullous (inflammatory). The accuracy of clinical diagnosis of tinea pedis is low. A KOH wet-mount examination of skin scrapings of the active border of the lesion is recommended as a point-of-care testing. The diagnosis can be confirmed, if necessary, by fungal culture or culture-independent molecular tools of skin scrapings. Superficial or localized tinea pedis usually responds to topical antifungal therapy. Oral antifungal therapy should be reserved for severe disease, failed topical antifungal therapy, concomitant presence of onychomycosis or in immunocompromised patients. Conclusion: Topical antifungal therapy (once to twice daily for 1-6 weeks) is the mainstay of treatment for superficial or localized tinea pedis. Examples of topical antifungal agents include allylamines (e.g. terbinafine), azoles (e.g. ketoconazole), benzylamine, ciclopirox, tolnaftate and amorolfine. Oral antifungal agents used for the treatment of tinea pedis include terbinafine, itraconazole and fluconazole. Combined therapy with topical and oral antifungals may increase the cure rate. The prognosis is good with appropriate antifungal treatment. Untreated, the lesions may persist and progress.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.334 · 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