Isolated Trigeminal Nerve Sarcoid Granuloma Mimicking Trigeminal Schwannoma: Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND IMPORTANCE: Sarcoidosis most commonly presents as a systemic disorder. Infrequently, sarcoidosis can manifest itself in the central nervous system, with granulomas involving the leptomeninges and presenting with facial nerve weakness. Sarcoid of the trigeminal nerve is exceedingly rare and can mimic trigeminal schwannoma. We review the literature on sarcoid granulomas of the trigeminal nerve and compare their radiological features with the more common schwannoma. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: A 33-year-old woman presented with a history of left-sided facial pain and numbness for 11 months, which was presumed to be trigeminal neuralgia. A trial of carbamazepine had been unsuccessful in relieving the facial pain. Her neurological examination revealed decreased facial sensation in the V(1)-V(2) distribution. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a contrast-enhancing mass centered in the left cavernous sinus with extension along the cisternal portion of the left trigeminal nerve. INTERVENTION: The patient underwent a left frontotemporal orbitozygomatic craniotomy with intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of Cranial Nerves III, V, and VI and image guidance for subtotal microsurgical resection of what appeared, grossly and on frozen section, to be a neurofibroma. The final pathology report, however, revealed a sarcoid granuloma of the trigeminal nerve. CONCLUSION: The differential diagnosis of contrast-enhancing lesions in the lateral wall of the cavernous sinus should include inflammatory conditions such as sarcoidosis. We recommend that surgery for biopsy or decompression be used only for those patients in whom a diagnosis cannot be confirmed with noninvasive testing. If surgery is performed, intraoperative frozen pathology is very useful in guiding the extent of resection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".