Comparative histology of orbital, hepatic and subcutaneous cavernous venous malformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although cavernous malformations tend to be isolated, they are not exclusively localised to the orbit. Similar lesions have been described in a variety of sites including the liver and the skin.1 ,2 Recently, we have described the clincopathophysiological nature of orbital cavernous malformations.3 The purpose of this follow-up investigation is to extend these findings to lesions of the liver and skin. We examined four representative, consecutive cases with a pathological diagnosis of cavernous malformation found in the liver, skin and orbit, respectively. A total of 12 cases were reviewed. All slides were stained as previously described.3 Morphological analysis revealed flat, mature vascular endothelium staining uniformly for CD31 without elastic lamina in all specimens. Vascular spaces were arranged in a back-to-back fashion, giving all cases a classic cavernous malformation appearance (figure 1A–C). Figure 1 (A) Low-power photomicrograph of H&E-stained cavernous malformation of the orbit. (B) Low-power photomicrograph of H&E-stained cavernous malformation of the skin. Inset demonstrates small vessels integrated in to the fibrous capsule. (C) Low-power photomicrograph of H&E-stained cavernous malformation of the liver. Asterisk (*) notes cavernous spaces within the liver parenchyma. (D) Medium-power photomicrograph of cavernous malformation of the orbit (Movat pentachrome). Stromal magnification (inset). Asterisk (*) notes …
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".