MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Respiratory Epithelial Orbital Cyst: Report of a Case and Review of the Literature

2005· article· en· W2144645443 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvia Pasternak, Mohammad Humayun, Noreen M. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Pathology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTeratomas and Epidermoid Cysts
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDermoid cystCystRespiratory epitheliumPathologyOrbit (dynamics)AnatomyMedicineContext (archaeology)Sinus (botany)Epidermoid cystEpitheliumBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orbital cysts include the common epidermoid and dermoid cysts, cysts of conjunctival origin and cysts lined by respiratory‐type epithelium. Respiratory epithelial cysts are exceedingly rare and have been reported in common locations for dermoid cysts (superotemporal and superonasal anterior orbit) and in sites atypical for dermoid cysts. Most represent maxillary sinus mucoceles extending into the orbital floor. In some patients, a history of orbital trauma or previous sinus surgery has been implicated in the implantation of the respiratory epithelium in the orbit. Rarely, the respiratory epithelial cyst has been considered to be a choristoma. We report the case of a 72‐year‐old woman who presented with a cyst in the anterior superotemporal orbit. There was no history of recent or remote trauma. The clinical impression was of a dermoid cyst. Histopathologic examination revealed a cyst lined by non‐keratinizing squamous epithelium. A few goblet cells were present and focally, short strips of ciliated mucin secreting columnar cells were identified. The histopathologic findings were those of a respiratory epithelial cyst of the orbit. Given the rarity of this entity, valuable information can be gleaned from critical evaluation and reporting of new cases, in the context of existing data in the 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous PathologySame topicTeratomas and Epidermoid CystsFrench-language works237,207