Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transverse nasal crease is an uncommonly reported entity. It likely represents an embryologic fault line. Transverse nasal milia have also been reported in the same location, both as an isolated finding and in a transverse nasal crease. This observation suggests they are variants of the same entity. OBSERVATIONS: Two cases, one of transverse nasal crease with milia and one of transverse nasal milia in the absence of a crease, are reported. A review of the literature on these rarely reported conditions was performed. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for clinicians to be aware of transverse nasal creases, since they may be encountered in a dermatologic practice. Transverse nasal creases, milia in transverse nasal creases, transverse nasal milia, and transverse nasal comedones in the absence of a transverse nasal crease are likely variants of the same entity. They most probably occur because the triangular cartilage and the alar cartilage attach in a linear fashion at the junction of the middle and lower third of the nose. This produces a potential embryonic fault line in which retention cysts presenting as milia and comedones can occur. These clinical presentations merit attention because they are likely much more common than reported.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".