Clinicopathological Pearls and Diagnostic Pitfalls in IgG4-Related Disease: Challenging Case Series and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is a chronic immune-mediated fibroinflammatory disorder characterized by lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates enriched in IgG4-positive plasma cells, storiform fibrosis, and frequently elevated serum IgG4 levels. Classic forms, such as pancreaticobiliary or retroperitoneal involvement, are often recognized early, whereas atypical manifestations mimic malignancy or inflammatory conditions, leading to delayed or inappropriate treatment. Case Series: A 30-year-old man presented with hyperemesis, proptosis, and gait instability. He was found to have colonic stenosis, stomach thickening, pachymeningitis, and polyserositis. Gastroenteric histology and serology confirmed IgG4-RD. Steroids were ineffective, but rituximab produced sustained clinical and radiologic improvement. A 35-year-old woman developed jaundice and cholestasis with a perihilar mass highly suggestive of cholangiocarcinoma. Histopathology revealed IgG4-RD, and rituximab therapy led to marked clinical and serological improvement. A 64-year-old woman with a submandibular mass underwent sialoadenectomy, with histology confirming IgG4-RD; she remained asymptomatic without systemic treatment. Literature Review: A literature review highlighted the diagnostic challenges of atypical IgG4-RD. Gastrointestinal involvement is rare and often misclassified as inflammatory bowel disease. Isolated biliary disease frequently mimics cholangiocarcinoma, while salivary gland involvement may be misdiagnosed as neoplasia. Serum IgG4 levels >135 mg/dL and IgG4/IgG ratio >0.21 may support clinical suspicion, but histopathology remains indispensable for definitive diagnosis and for excluding malignancy. Steroid responsiveness is a hallmark, though relapses after tapering are common, often necessitating B-cell-directed therapy. Conclusions: IgG4-RD should be considered in patients with unexplained, relapsing, or steroid-responsive conditions. Early recognition, multidisciplinary collaboration, and integration of histopathology with clinical features are essential to avoid misdiagnosis and optimize management.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".