Genetics in chronic kidney disease: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous genes for monogenic kidney diseases with classical patterns of inheritance, as well as genes for complex kidney diseases that manifest in combination with environmental factors, have been discovered. Genetic findings are increasingly used to inform clinical management of nephropathies, and have led to improved diagnostics, disease surveillance, choice of therapy, and family counseling. All of these steps rely on accurate interpretation of genetic data, which can be outpaced by current rates of data collection. In March of 2021, Kidney Diseases: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a Controversies Conference on "Genetics in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)" to review the current state of understanding of monogenic and complex (polygenic) kidney diseases, processes for applying genetic findings in clinical medicine, and use of genomics for defining and stratifying CKD. Given the important contribution of genetic variants to CKD, practitioners with CKD patients are advised to "think genetic," which specifically involves obtaining a family history, collecting detailed information on age of CKD onset, performing clinical examination for extrarenal symptoms, and considering genetic testing. To improve the use of genetics in nephrology, meeting participants advised developing an advanced training or subspecialty track for nephrologists, crafting guidelines for testing and treatment, and educating patients, students, and practitioners. Key areas of future research, including clinical interpretation of genome variation, electronic phenotyping, global representation, kidney-specific molecular data, polygenic scores, translational epidemiology, and open data resources, were also identified.
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 | 0.032 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".