Concha Bullosa Mucocele: A Case Series and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concha bullosa mucocele is a rare diagnosis that presents as a nasal mass. It impinges on surrounding structures and can easily be mistaken for a neoplasm. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to shed light on this rare entity and report its diagnostic features and treatment outcomes. METHODS: A case series conducted in a tertiary health care center. Demographic data, clinical presentation, imaging, cultures, and treatments were recorded. Operative video illustration and key images were obtained. A review of the literature was also performed. RESULTS: A total of five cases were reviewed, four of which were concha bullosa mucoceles and one was a mucopyocele. Three of the patients had some form of previous nasal trauma. Headache and nasal obstruction were the most common symptoms with a nasal mass finding on physical examination. Computed tomography was used in all the patients, and magnetic resonance imaging was used in four of the five patients. Four patients had coexistent chronic rhinosinusitis, and three had positive bacterial cultures. All these patients were treated endoscopically either with middle turbinate marsupialization or subtotal resection. No recurrence has been noted thus far. CONCLUSION: Concha bullosa mucocele is a rare diagnosis. Imaging characteristics are helpful in considering the diagnosis, although surgical intervention is often necessary to confirm the diagnosis and treat concha bullosa mucocele.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".