Idiopathic apical orbital inflammation: clinical features and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic apical orbital inflammation (AOI) is used to describe inflammation involving the posterior third of the orbit where no specific cause can be identified. It is a rare entity in which the presentation can vary widely. We aim to describe a case series of patients with idiopathic AOI and their clinicoradiological features and visual outcomes. METHOD: Retrospective multi-centre case series involving patients with idiopathic AOI. RESULTS: Seven patients were included. The mean age was 50.3 ± 18.4 years (range: 31-84 years). The left eye was involved in the majority of patients (4, 57.1%), with the most common presenting clinical symptoms and signs being limitation of extraocular movements (6, 85.7%), periorbital pain (4, 57.1%), and blurred vision (4, 57.1%). Optic neuropathy was present in 3 (42.9%) patients. Three patients (42.9%) underwent an orbital biopsy, which were all consistent with nonspecific inflammation. Medical treatment was used for all patients in the form of oral steroids (5, 71.4%) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (1, 14.3%). Two (28.6%) patients had additional immunosuppression. At last follow-up, 2 (28.6%) patients had achieved complete resolution of all of their symptoms, 2 (28.6%) patients had significant clinical improvement with mild residual disease, 2 (28.6%) had stable disease, and 1 (28.6%) was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Idiopathic AOI is a rare condition that can present with a wide variety of symptoms and be potentially blinding. Patients responded well to oral corticosteroids, but biopsy and additional immunosuppressive agents should be considered in those with recurrent, poorly responsive, or atypical disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".