Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Topical therapies for onychomycosis are associated with less adverse events than systemic therapies, but poor nail penetration limits their efficacy. Consequently, an efinaconazole 10% nail solution was developed. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence supporting the usefulness of efinaconazole monotherapy in onychomycosis management. METHODS: PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov databases and abstracts from the 2013 annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology were searched in April 2013 using the terms "efinaconazole," "IDP-108," and "KP-103." RESULTS: In vitro, efinaconazole possesses a broad antifungal activity similar or superior to that of other antifungals. Its low affinity for keratin results in good nail penetration. Efinaconazole 10% nail solution administered daily for 36 or 48 weeks to treat mild to moderate toenail onychomycosis caused by dermatophytes results in complete and mycologic cure rates of 15 to 25% and 53 to 87%, respectively. No serious skin reaction is associated with its use. CONCLUSION: Efinaconazole 10% nail solution is a promising new treatment for onychomycosis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".