Meta-analysis: griseofulvin efficacy in the treatment of tinea capitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its long history in clinical use, reported efficacy rates of griseofulvin remain highly variable. A meta-analysis of clinical trials of griseofulvin use in tinea capitis was performed to determine mean griseofulvin efficacy. A review of the literature identified 7 studies. When all 7 studies were pooled, the overall mean effective cure (negative KOH and culture) of griseofulvin at 4 to 6 weeks posttreatment was 73.4% +/- 7% (7 studies, n = 438 patients). Higher efficacy rates appeared to be reported with the use of higher dosages of griseofulvin (> 18 mg/kg/d). When broken down by species, the mean efficacy for Trichophyton and Microsporum were 67.6% +/- 9% (5 studies, n = 396) and 88.1% +/- 5% (2 studies, n = 42 patients), respectively. Based on these studies, griseofulvin efficacy has remained consistently high over the past decade. Both genera showed good efficacy with griseofulvin therapy given from 6 to 8 weeks. Griseofulvin remains an effective therapy for tinea capitis.
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".