Periorbital Intravenous Lobular Pyogenic Granulomas: A Case Report and Literature Review of This Peculiar Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intravenous lobular pyogenic granuloma (ILPG) is a seldom-documented pathology in oculoplastic and orbital literature. This study aims to elucidate the clinical presentation and histopathologic findings surrounding periorbital ILPG through a case presentation and literature review. We describe a 42-year-old male with a palpable periorbital subcutaneous nodule that was subsequently diagnosed as ILPG on immunohistochemistry. A literature review was performed by searching articles in the PubMed/MEDLINE database using the keywords "periorbital intravenous lobular pyogenic granuloma," "periorbital intravenous pyogenic granuloma," or "periorbital intravenous capillary hemangioma." The literature review identified 6 patients presenting with similar subcutaneous nodules that were diagnosed as periorbital ILPGs. All patients, including the one in this study, were treated with local excision. Only 1 patient (1/7; 14.3%) noted pain while 5 experienced swelling or fluctuance (5/7; 71.4%). In patients with documented pathology reports, all ILPGs involved the angular vein (6/6; 100%). Of the 3 patients who had follow-ups at 2 to 7 years postexcision, none had recurrence. Histopathologic findings demonstrate an intravascular lobular tumor composed of capillaries with endothelial cells and pericytes. Marked reactivity to anti-Wilms tumor type 1 (WT-1) and anti-Smooth muscle actin was noted in the capillary structure. ILPG can be included on the differential for well-circumscribed, subcutaneous periocular masses. While the etiology of periorbital ILPG is unknown, most cases are managed with surgical excision, and recurrence appears to be uncommon. In sharing these cases and histopathologic underpinnings of periorbital ILPG, we endeavor to describe this peculiar pathology for oculoplastic and reconstructive surgeons.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".