MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134260051 · doi:10.1093/ndtplus/sfm002

Lipomatosis and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis: causation, association or coincidence?

2007· article· en· W2134260051 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine A. Barraclough, C.K. Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Kidney Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Contouring and Surgery
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFocal segmental glomerulosclerosisAssociation (psychology)PathologyInternal medicineGlomerulonephritisKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, Lipomatosis is an extremely rare disorder [1]. Affected persons develop multiple symmetrical, diffuse deposits of fat in the subcutaneous tissue. The lipomata cause physical disfigurement, without tendency to malignancy [1]. Little is known about secondary co-morbidity, with no previous reports of associated renal disease. We describe three patients with lipomatosis who developed biopsy-proven focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). A 41-year-old man with lipomatosis since age 18 was incidentally found to have proteinuria (1.36 g/day). Blood pressure and lipid levels were normal. Serum creatinine was 132 mmol/l. Renal biopsy showed FSGS. Prednisone and ramipril led to mild proteinuria reduction. After 110 months, creatinine was 154 mmol/l and proteinuria was 1.92 g/day. Patient 2 developed proteinuria and anasarca at age 7. These rapidly resolved with prednisone and diuretics. There was no follow-up. Lipomatosis appeared at 25. Urinalysis and blood pressure at 32 were normal. Asymptomatic proteinuria (0.79 g/day) was again noted at 34. Blood pressure, kidney function and albumin remained normal. Renal biopsy showed FSGS. Enalapril led to modest proteinuria reduction. After 134 months, creatinine was 190 mmol/l with proteinuria of 0.79 g/day. The third patient also had undiagnosed childhood renal disease, with peripheral oedema and proteinuria. Symptoms and proteinuria were resolved with herbs. Lipomatosis became apparent at 20. Asymptomatic proteinuria (2.2 g/day) was again noted at 37. Blood pressure was 120/80, serum creatinine was 136 mmol/l and albumin was normal. Renal biopsy showed FSGS. There was minimal response to prednisone, but with subsequent ramipril, proteinuria fell to 0.53 g/day. After 86 months, creatinine had risen to 280 mmol/l with proteinuria of 2.94 g/day. The slow deterioration in all patients occurred despite ACE inhibitor therapy and optimal blood pressure and lipid control. FSGS is a common renal diagnosis, with non-specific histological findings. Of interest here is the unifying association with lipomatosis. FSGS can be primary or secondary. Clinical and biopsy features usually allow distinction. In our patients, the lack of symptoms, degree of proteinuria, electron microscopic findings and slow progression suggested secondary disease. In patient 1, we were unable to identify any coexisting disorders associated with secondary FSGS. The other two patients had undiagnosed childhood renal disease, which, despite apparent resolution with therapy, may have been predisposing. Regardless, the rarity of lipomatosis makes the chance of finding the same renal lesion in the three patients less likely. Further, the same renal lesion occurs in obesity, a condition also associated with adipocyte excess. The mechanism underlying this association remains unclear, but the effects of adipocyte-derived hormones on glomerular structure and function have been suggested, with leptin, TNF-α and angiotensin II being identified as potential mediators [2,3]. We suggest a possible link between adipocyte tumour cell hormone production and the development and/or progression of FSGS in our patients. Increased reporting of similar cases is needed to confirm this association. Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Kidney JournalSame topicBody Contouring and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207