MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386498603 · doi:10.1080/01676830.2023.2255652

Lacrimal gland sinus generated by a retained cilium: case report and literature review

2023· review· en· W4386498603 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrbit · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsShared Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalpebral fissureMedicineLacrimal glandSinus (botany)AnatomyAsymptomaticSurgeryPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lacrimal gland stone(s) (LGSs) are rare and usually asymptomatic. LGSs should be distinguished from dacryoliths, as the former arise in the lacrimal gland. The aetiology of LGSs in many cases is likely related to a reaction to a hair within the palpebral lobe of lacrimal gland. Eye rubbing may contribute to the migration of the hair into the lacrimal gland. This case report describes the rare occurrence of an LGS with a central hair shaft (cilium) and associated sinus formation in a 39-year-old male presenting with persistent redness of, and discharge from the right eye for 4 weeks. Examination revealed a sinus opening onto the inferonasal surface of the palpebral lobe of the right lacrimal gland. The patient was treated with surgical excision of the sinus, with rapid and complete resolution of his 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it