Global onychomycosis management and the challenges of antifungal stewardship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Onychomycosis, in contrast to other routine superficial dermatophyte infections, is difficult to treat and poor outcomes are not unusual. Few guidelines for onychomycosis management have been published, and these vary considerably from region to region. To meet global antifungal stewardship (AFS) goals, there must be global management guidelines for clinicians to follow in their onychomycosis practice. We aimed to survey current practices for onychomycosis management across a variety of global regions and compare practices to published treatment guidelines, as well as to what degree the management practices may facilitate AFS practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An informal literature review was performed to identify regional onychomycosis guidelines. An online survey of our colleagues was distributed to assess current onychomycosis management practices and challenges for comparison with associated regional guidelines. Guidelines and practices were reviewed for adherence to the general AFS principles. RESULTS: Our review of current practices shows that, despite guidelines, identification of the infecting species is often not obtained, and treatment provision does not strictly follow existing guidelines. Lack of laboratory access prevents diagnosis and antifungal susceptibility testing that can help provide targeted treatments and resistance surveillance. Better diagnostic methods are needed as a component to improve management decisions, and provide the reliable monitoring required for effective AFS. Broader clinical testing is needed to address knowledge gaps in onychomycosis therapy. Meeting these challenges must be a priority as antifungal resistance is quickly becoming a worldwide problem. CONCLUSIONS: As a reservoir for resistant strains, onychomycosis represents a significant future medical/economic burden. Future onychomycosis guidelines must address the challenge of resource limitations experienced by clinicians, as well as the challenge of balancing the need for AFS principles with the specific needs of onychomycosis therapy.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".