Polycystic Kidney Disease without an Apparent Family History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The absence of a positive family history (PFH) in 10%–25% of patients poses a diagnostic challenge for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). In the Toronto Genetic Epidemiology Study of Polycystic Kidney Disease, 210 affected probands underwent renal function testing, abdominal imaging, and comprehensive PKD1 and PKD2 mutation screening. From this cohort, we reviewed all patients with and without an apparent family history, examined their parental medical records, and performed renal imaging in all available parents of unknown disease status. Subsequent reclassification of 209 analyzed patients revealed 72.2% (151 of 209) with a PFH, 15.3% (32 of 209) with de novo disease, 10.5% (22 of 209) with an indeterminate family history, and 1.9% (four of 209) with PFH in retrospect. Among the patients with de novo cases, we found two families with germline mosaicism and one family with somatic mosaicism. Additionally, analysis of renal imaging revealed that 16.3% (34 of 209) of patients displayed atypical PKD, most of which followed one of three patterns: asymmetric or focal PKD with PFH and an identified PKD1 or PKD2 mutation (15 of 34), asymmetric and de novo PKD with proven or suspected somatic mosaicism (seven of 34), or focal PKD without any identifiable PKD1 or PKD2 mutation (eight of 34). In conclusion, PKD without an apparent family history may be due to de novo disease, missing parental medical records, germline or somatic mosaicism, or mild disease from hypomorphic PKD1 and PKD2 mutations. Furthermore, mutations of a newly identified gene for ADPKD, GANAB , and somatic mosaicism need to be considered in the mutation-negative patients with focal 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".