Emerging Role of Clinical Genetics in CKD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) afflicts 15% of adults in the United States, of whom 25% have a family history. Genetic testing is supportive in identifying and possibly confirming diagnoses of CKD, thereby guiding care. Advances in the clinical genetic evaluation include next-generation sequencing with targeted gene panels, whole exome sequencing, and whole genome sequencing. These platforms provide DNA sequence reads with excellent coverage throughout the genome and have identified novel genetic causes of CKD. New pathologic genetic variants identified in previously unrecognized biological pathways have elucidated disease mechanisms underlying CKD etiologies, potentially establishing prognosis and guiding treatment selection. Molecular diagnoses using genetic sequencing can detect rare, potentially treatable mutations, avoid misdiagnoses, guide selection of optimal therapy, and decrease the risk of unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions. Genetic testing has been widely adopted in pediatric nephrology; however, it is less frequently used to date in adult nephrology. Extension of clinical genetic approaches to adult patients may achieve similar benefits in diagnostic refinement and treatment selection. This review aimed to identify clinical CKD phenotypes that may benefit the most from genetic testing, outline the commonly available platforms, and provide examples of successful deployment of these approaches in CKD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".