Scleral communication between Glaucoma drainage device capsule and the suprachoroidal space simulating amelanotic choroidal melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a case report involving a 56-year-old male patient with a history of pars plana vitrectomy due to a rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in the right eye that resulted in the implantation of a drainage device after the patient developed secondary glaucoma. Two years after the device's implantation, the patient was referred to our care as his visual acuity had decreased to 20/200 (1.00 LogMAR). At the fundus evaluation, a choroidal amelanotic elevation was observed at the upper temporal equator, and a potential diagnosis was made of amelanotic choroidal melanoma. The ultrasound exam visualized the patient's implanted superotemporal justabulbar drainage device, which revealed a transscleral communication from the plate fibrocapsular's draining space to the suprachoroidal space (fistula). The ultrasound also revealed a focal pocket of choroidal detachment in the patient's superotemporal region, simulating an amelanotic choroidal melanoma. A new pars plana vitrectomy was performed to remove the internal limiting membrane without repercussions at the fistula site. The patient's recovery progressed well, and he regained a visual acuity of 20/70 (0.55 LogMAR). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of this condition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".