Primary Localized Conjunctival Amyloidosis Simulating a Lymphoproliferative Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 39-year-old previously healthy woman presented with a 3-year history of a painless lump in her left upper eyelid that had been increasing in size over the last 8 months. On examination, a soft, nontender mass was palpated in the medial left upper eyelid and anterior orbit. She had 2 mm of eyelid ptosis and 2 mm of inferior globe displacement. A salmon-pink mass of tissue was identified in the superomedial conjunctiva. The remaining ophthalmic examination was unremarkable. A lymphoproliferative process was suspected; however, an incisional biopsy revealed amyloid. Further workup showed no evidence of systemic amyloidosis, lymphoma, plasmacytoma, or multiple myeloma. The patient has been followed for more than 16 months with no new developments in her health. Amyloidosis has a variety of presentations in the periocular region and may be the sole manifestation of the disease process. It is not often considered in the differential diagnosis of conjunctival lesions. The classic "salmon-pink" conjunctival infitrate has been associated with lymphoproliferative disorders; however, amyloid should also be considered, as it may be clinically indistinguishable.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".