{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014787430683918669, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.573426573426573, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Revisiting infectious triggers of chronic intraocular immunity

The pathogenesis of intraocular inflammation has been extensively revisited on the basis of different sophisticated experimental models but also new molecular tools applied to ocular fluids or tissues. Experimental ocular inflammation may not be induced in germ‐free animal facilities. Moreover, an infectious agent has been identified in patients presenting with different uveitis entities, previously considered as autoimmune and therefore treated with corticosteroids and aggressive immunosuppressive agents. Molecular mimicry or expression of foreign antigens may trigger an inflammatory reaction, masquerading as an autoimmune uveitis. Fuchs cyclitis, Posner‐Schlossman syndrome, serpiginous choroiditis, nonnecrotizing herpetic retinopathies have been recently characterized, expanding the spectrum of infectious uveitis. Microbiological identification remains the first step prior to initiation of a specific therapy, reducing the risk of relapse and achieving a better visual outcome in challenging situations.