Precision Medicine in Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Narrative Review Framed by Lived Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of review: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) for which many treatments exist that have been shown to prevent CKD progression and kidney failure. However, DKD is a complex and heterogeneous etiology of CKD with a spectrum of phenotypes and disease trajectories. In this narrative review, we discuss precision medicine approaches to DKD, including genomics, metabolomics, proteomics, and their potential role in the management of diabetes mellitus and DKD. A patient and caregivers of patients with lived experience with CKD were involved in this review. Sources of information: Original research articles were identified from MEDLINE and Google Scholar using the search terms "diabetes," "diabetic kidney disease," "diabetic nephropathy," "chronic kidney disease," "kidney failure," "dialysis," "nephrology," "genomics," "metabolomics," and "proteomics." Methods: A focused review and critical appraisal of existing literature regarding the precision medicine approaches to the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of diabetes and DKD framed by a patient partner's/caregiver's lived experience. Key findings: Distinguishing diabetic nephropathy from CKD due to other types of DKD and non-DKD is challenging and typically requires a kidney biopsy for a diagnosis. Biomarkers have been identified to assist with the prediction of the onset and progression of DKD, but they have yet to be incorporated and evaluated relative to clinical standard of care CKD and kidney failure risk prediction tools. Genomics has identified multiple causal genetic variants for neonatal diabetes mellitus and monogenic diabetes of the young that can be used for diagnostic purposes and to specify antiglycemic therapy. Genome-wide-associated studies have identified genes implicated in DKD pathophysiology in the setting of type 1 and 2 diabetes but their translational benefits are lagging beyond polygenetic risk scores. Metabolomics and proteomics have been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy in DKD, have been used to identify novel pathways involved in DKD pathogenesis, and can be used to improve the prediction of CKD progression and kidney failure as well as predict response to DKD therapy. Limitations: There are a limited number of large, high-quality prospective observational studies and no randomized controlled trials that support the use of precision medicine based approaches to improve clinical outcomes in adults with or at risk of diabetes and DKD. It is unclear which patients may benefit from the clinical use of genomics, metabolomics and proteomics along the spectrum of DKD trajectory. Implications: Additional research is needed to evaluate the role of the use of precision medicine for DKD management, including diagnosis, differentiation of diabetic nephropathy from other etiologies of DKD and CKD, short-term and long-term risk prognostication kidney outcomes, and the prediction of response to and safety of disease-modifying therapies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".