Scoring system for renal pathology in Fabry disease: report of the International Study Group of Fabry Nephropathy (ISGFN)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Fabry nephropathy, alpha-galactosidase deficiency leads to accumulation of glycosphingolipids in all kidney cell types, proteinuria and progressive loss of kidney function. METHODS: An international working group of nephrologists from 11 Fabry centres identified adult Fabry patients, and pathologists scored histologic changes on renal biopsies. A standardized scoring system was developed with a modified Delphi technique assessing 59 Fabry nephropathy cases. Each case was scored independently of clinical information by at least three pathologists with an average final score reported. RESULTS: We assessed 35 males (mean age 36.4 years) and 24 females (43.9 years) who mostly had clinically mild Fabry nephropathy. The average serum creatinine was 1.3 mg/dl (114.9 micromol/l); estimated glomerular filtration rate was 81.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and urine protein to creatinine ratio was 1.08 g/g (122.0 mg/mmol). Males had greater podocyte vacuolization on light microscopy (mean score) and glycosphingolipid inclusions on semi-thin sections than females. Males also had significantly more proximal tubule, peritubular capillary and vascular intimal inclusions. Arteriolar hyalinosis was similar, but females had significantly more arterial hyalinosis. Chronic kidney disease stage correlated with arterial and glomerular sclerosis scores. Significant changes, including segmental and global sclerosis, and interstitial fibrosis were seen even in patients with stage 1-2 chronic kidney disease with minimal proteinuria. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a standardized scoring system of both disease-specific lesions, i.e. lipid deposition related, and general lesions of progression, i.e. fibrosis and sclerosis, showed a spectrum of histologic appearances even in early clinical stage of Fabry nephropathy. These findings support the role of kidney biopsy in the baseline evaluation of Fabry nephropathy, even with mild clinical disease. The scoring system will be useful for longitudinal assessment of prognosis and responses to therapy for Fabry nephropathy.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".