Malignancy in the blind painful eye – report of two cases and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
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".