Onychomycosis in Diabetics: A Common Infection with Potentially Serious Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Onychomycosis is a prevalent and clinically relevant complication among individuals with diabetes. It is associated with an elevated risk of secondary fungal and bacterial infections, foot ulceration, and, in advanced cases, amputation. Factors contributing to the increased prevalence of onychomycosis in this population include age, peripheral vascular disease, poor glycemic control, neuropathy, suboptimal foot hygiene, and nail trauma. While dermatophytes are the most common pathogens, diabetic patients are more prone to mixed infections involving Candida species with varying antifungal susceptibility profiles, necessitating accurate identification to guide therapy. Prompt diagnosis and early intervention are important to prevent complications. Systemic antifungals such as terbinafine and itraconazole are considered first-line therapies, particularly for moderate to severe onychomycosis. However, drug interactions, renal, hepatic, and metabolic comorbidities may necessitate individualized treatment plans. For patients with mild to moderate disease, or contraindications to oral therapy, topical agents such as efinaconazole or tavaborole offer viable alternatives. Adjunctive measures, including education on foot hygiene, prompt treatment of tinea pedis, and environmental sanitization, are important in preventing recurrence and reinfection. This review summarizes the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment considerations for onychomycosis in diabetic patients, emphasizing the need for individualized care to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".