MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150516576 · doi:10.1186/1746-1596-1-45

Malignancy in the blind painful eye – report of two cases and literature review

2006· article· en· W2150516576 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic Pathology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnucleationMalignancyEndophthalmitisOrbital cellulitisSurgeryEye EnucleationLymphomaRetinal detachmentOphthalmologyDermatologyCellulitisPathologyRetinal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few cases of malignant tumors arising in a blind painful eye have previously been described. We described two cases of a blind painful eye containing an unsuspected tumor, which were enucleated to relieve the pain. CASE PRESENTATIONS: Case 1: A 57 year-old Caucasian man presented with recurrent orbital cellulitis and endophthalmitis in the left eye (OS). The OS was blind and painful and an enucleation was performed showing a uveal melanoma by histopathological exam. Case 2: A 54 year-old Caucasian man with previous history of a rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in his left eye presented a blind painful eye. Enucleation was performed revealing a well-differentiated B-cell lymphoma of uveal tract with extra ocular extension. CONCLUSION: In the management of a blind painful eye, it is extremely important to rule out an intraocular malignancy particularly in those patients who have not been followed by an ophthalmologist.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.315 · 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