Genetics and Genomics of Pulmonary Fibrosis: Charting the Molecular Landscape and Shaping Precision Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent genetic and genomic advancements have elucidated the complex etiology of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and other progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), emphasizing the contribution of heritable factors. This state-of-the-art review synthesizes evidence on significant genetic contributors to pulmonary fibrosis (PF), including rare genetic variants and common SNPs. The MUC5B promoter variant is unusual, a common SNP that markedly elevates the risk of early and established PF. We address the utility of genetic variation in enhancing understanding of disease pathogenesis and clinical phenotypes, improving disease definitions, and informing prognosis and treatment response. Critical research gaps are highlighted, particularly the underrepresentation of non-European ancestries in PF genetic studies and the exploration of PF phenotypes beyond usual interstitial pneumonia/IPF. We discuss the role of telomere length, often critically short in PF, and its link to progression and mortality, underscoring the genetic complexity involving telomere biology genes (TERT, TERC) and others like SFTPC and MUC5B. In addition, we address the potential of gene-by-environment interactions to modulate disease manifestation, advocating for precision medicine in PF. Insights from gene expression profiling studies and multiomic analyses highlight the promise for understanding disease pathogenesis and offer new approaches to clinical care, therapeutic drug development, and biomarker discovery. Finally, we discuss the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic research and therapies in PF, stressing the need for sound practices and informed clinical genetic discussions. Looking forward, we advocate for comprehensive genetic testing panels and polygenic risk scores to improve the management of PF and related ILDs across diverse populations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".