Dural Cavernous Angioma: A Preoperative Diagnostic Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dural cavernous angiomas are uncommon benign vascular malformations which may present intraoperative difficulties in hemostasis when the diagnosis is not suspected preoperatively. Preoperative diagnosis can be difficult when angiomas show atypical features and share imaging characteristics with other entities. METHODS: A patient presented with a radiographically aggressive lesion, subsequently identified as a dural cavernous angioma. The lesion is reviewed and its clinical, radiographic, and pathological features are compared with other vascular malformations. CASE REPORT: A 40-year-old man presented with new onset seizures and an enhancing lesion infiltrating the floor of the right middle cranial fossa. Due to its aggressive radiographic appearance, initial considerations included chondrosarcoma, meningioma or metastasis. Pathological examination, however, revealed the lesion to be a cavernous angioma of dura. CONCLUSION: This uncommon lesion may present a diagnostic challenge with significant intraoperative implications. T2 sequence hyperintensity in a relevant lesion should raise suspicion of an hemangioma. It is important to be aware of this entity and its potential to mimic other entities on radiographic grounds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".