Conus medullaris intramedullary arachnoid cyst- case report and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal intramedullary cysts present a radiological dilemma. We present a rare case of a conus intramedullary arachnoid cyst and report on its differentiating features and management. CASE DESCRIPTION: We report a case of a 30-month-old child who presented with decreased gluteal sensation and urinary dribbling for 6 months. Apart from some slowness in walking, the power was normal in all four limbs. Imaging showed a non-enhancing, T2-weighted hyperintense 12 × 8 mm conus intramedullary cyst without any edema. A T12-L1 laminotomy followed by marsupialization of the cyst was done. Histopathology was suggestive of an arachnoid cyst. The postoperative course was uneventful with improvement in muscle strength and achievement of regular milestones. We also present the pertinent review of the literature to date. CONCLUSION: Intramedullary arachnoid cysts are a rare entity and should form the differential diagnosis for cysts presenting in the conus medullaris. Simple decompressive options may suffice for symptomatic cases and radical excision may be avoided. A high index of suspicion is essential considering the subtle nature of presenting 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".