Sarcoidosis Uveitis Mimicking the Presentation of Intraocular Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to report a case of sarcoidosis presenting with atypical clinical findings that mimicked intraocular lymphoma. A 73-year-old female presented with flashes and decreased vision in her left eye over a 2-week period. The patient had no previous ocular medical history. Initial fundal examination revealed vitritis (vitreous inflammation) with retinal hemorrhage and subretinal yellowish lesions in the left eye. All tests were negative for infectious causes. Serum angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) was normal. Flow cytometric analysis of vitreous showed a suspicious CD4 + T lymphoid population missing CD7 surface antigen and an elevated CD4/CD8 ratio. Chest CT showed hilar lymphadenopathy. Clinical findings to this point raised the suspicion of lymphoma. Hilar lymph node biopsy demonstrated granulomatous inflammation, confirming the diagnosis of sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis presenting with uveitis in an elderly patient may pose a diagnostic challenge due to variable presentation and absence of diagnostic criteria. Retinitis and subretinal infiltrates can be a misleading clinical finding of sarcoidosis masquerading as an intraocular oncologic process such as lymphoma. J Med Cases. 2019;10(1):4-7 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc3190
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".