MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402124489 · doi:10.1172/jci178573

Increased risk of kidney failure in patients with genetic kidney disorders

2024· article· en· W4402124489 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Elliott, Natalie Vena, Maddalena Marasà, Enrico Cocchi, Shiraz Bheda, Kelsie Bogyo, Ning Shang, Francesca Zanoni, Miguel Verbitsky, Chen Wang, Victoria Kolupaeva, Gina Jin, Maayan Sofer, Rafael Pena, Pietro A. Canetta, Andrew S. Bomback, Lisa M. Guay‐Woodford, Jean Hou, Brenda W. Gillespie, Bruce Robinson, Jon B. Klein, Michelle N. Rheault, William E. Smoyer, Larry A. Greenbaum, Ronald J. Falk, Afshin Parsa, Simone Sanna‐Cherchi, Laura Mariani, Matthias Kretzler, Krzysztof Kiryluk, Ali G. Gharavi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesU.S. National Library of MedicineNephcure FoundationNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsKidneyMedicineBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUNDIt is unknown whether the risk of kidney disease progression and failure differs between patients with and without genetic kidney disorders.METHODSThree cohorts were evaluated: the prospective Cure Glomerulonephropathy Network (CureGN) and 2 retrospective cohorts from Columbia University, including 5,727 adults and children with kidney disease from any etiology who underwent whole-genome or exome sequencing. The effects of monogenic kidney disorders and APOL1 kidney-risk genotypes on the risk of kidney failure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline, and disease remission rates were evaluated along with diagnostic yields and the impact of American College of Medical Genetics secondary findings (ACMG SFs).RESULTSMonogenic kidney disorders were identified in 371 patients (6.5%), high-risk APOL1 genotypes in 318 (5.5%), and ACMG SFs in 100 (5.2%). Family history of kidney disease was the strongest predictor of monogenic disorders. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, monogenic kidney disorders were associated with an increased risk of kidney failure (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.72), higher rate of eGFR decline (-3.06 vs. 0.25 mL/min/1.73 m2/year), and lower risk of complete remission (odds ratioNot achieving CR = 5.25). High-risk APOL1 genotypes were associated with an increased risk of kidney failure (HR = 1.67) and faster eGFR decline (-2.28 vs. 0.25 mL/min/1.73 m2), replicating prior findings. ACMG SFs were not associated with personal or family history of associated diseases, but were predicted to impact care in 70% of cases.CONCLUSIONSMonogenic kidney disorders were associated with an increased risk of kidney failure, faster eGFR decline, and lower rates of complete remission, suggesting opportunities for early identification and intervention based on molecular diagnosis.TRIAL REGISTRATIONNA.FUNDINGNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grants U24DK100845 (formerly UM1DK100845), U01DK100846 (formerly UM1DK100846), U01DK100876 (formerly UM1DK100876), U01DK100866 (formerly UM1DK100866), U01DK100867 (formerly UM1DK100867), U24DK100845, DK081943, RC2DK116690, 2U01DK100876, 1R01DK136765, 5R01DK082753, and RC2-DK122397; NephCure Kidney International; Department of Defense Research Awards PR201425, W81XWH-16-1-0451, and W81XWH-22-1-0966; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant UL1TR001873; National Library of Medicine grant R01LM013061; National Human Genome Research Institute grant 2U01HG008680.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicRenal Diseases and GlomerulopathiesFrench-language works237,207