Localised invasive sino-orbital aspergillosis: characteristic features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: To describe the characteristic constellation of historical, clinical, radiographic, and histopathological findings of localised invasive sino-orbital aspergillosis based on the authors' recent experience of four consecutive cases presenting over a 6 month period. Treatment and outcome are reviewed. METHODS: A case series of four patients with review of the English language literature. RESULTS: There have been 17 reported cases of invasive sino-orbital aspergillosis in healthy individuals over the past 33 years. The authors report four patients who presented during a 6 month period with persistent and significant pain followed by progressive ophthalmic signs-clinical histories reflecting the literature. Similar imaging findings were also noted: focal hypodense areas within apical infiltrates on contrasted computed tomography correspond to abscesses seen at surgery, and sinus obliteration or involvement of the adjacent sinus lining was noted on magnetic resonance imaging. Bone erosion (often focal) was also seen. There is frequently a delay in making the correct diagnosis, and often disease progression occurs despite treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The authors encountered four cases of invasive sino-orbital aspergillosis, three of which occurred in otherwise healthy individuals. The clinician must be aware of the characteristic presentation so that earlier diagnosis, management, and improved outcomes can be achieved.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".