Infundibulocystic Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Eyelid in Basal Cell Nevus Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the histopathologic findings in a series of eyelid basal cell carcinomas removed from patients with basal cell nevus syndrome. METHODS: Retrospective case series of 5 patients with basal cell nevus syndrome identified from our oculoplastics service. The systemic and ophthalmic features were reviewed, and a retrospective histopathologic analysis of all available previously excised eyelid lesions was performed. The pertinent published literature on basal cell nevus syndrome and eyelid basal cell carcinoma was reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 26 eyelid lesions were examined histopathologically. Twenty-three of these lesions were basal cell carcinomas. The infundibulocystic variant of basal cell carcinoma was identified most commonly (57%). CONCLUSIONS: Eyelid basal cell carcinomas in patients with basal cell nevus syndrome were commonly of the infundibulocystic variety in our series. Infundibulocystic basal cell carcinomas, which can be clinically indistinguishable from the more common forms, are thought to be less aggressive than other types of basal cell carcinoma and are a reassuring histopathologic diagnosis. It is important for the ophthalmologist and pathologist to be aware of infundibulocystic basal cell carcinomas, as they are more common in patients with basal cell nevus syndrome and may be a clue to the diagnosis of this autosomal dominant cancer-predisposition syndrome or other associated syndromes. To our knowledge, this variant of basal cell carcinoma has not been previously discussed in the ophthalmic literature.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".