Onodi Cell Mucocele: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Onodi cell mucoceles are rare entities that can cause devastating ocular complications if not treated promptly. Delays in the diagnosis are possible because of the wide range of differential diagnoses of unilateral retrobulbar optic neuropathy. We describe a new case of Onodi cell mucocele in a 39-year-old woman, and we present a comprehensive review of the literature on this entity. To the best of our knowledge, no review of Onodi cell mucoceles has been previously published. Our review found that 69% of patients with an Onodi cell mucocele experienced an improvement in vision after surgical decompression. The vast majority of these patients underwent endoscopic decompression; the timing of surgical decompression did not appear to affect outcomes in terms of vision. Onodi cell mucocele requires a high degree of clinical suspicion for diagnosis and a multidisciplinary approach to management that involves primary care physicians, ophthalmologists, and otolaryngologists. Early surgical treatment via an endoscopic approach is recommended for most patients, regardless of the duration of their ophthalmologic signs and symptoms.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".