MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414065762 · doi:10.1097/mcp.0000000000001213

Primary ciliary dyskinesia: clinical manifestations and current diagnostic approaches

2025· article· en· W4414065762 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J Reklow, Sharon Dell

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCiliopathyGenetic diagnosisDiagnostic testGenetic testingCurrent (fluid)Primary careMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the clinical symptoms of primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) beginning at birth and current approaches for confirming diagnosis. Strengths and limitations of innovative adjunctive tests to improve detection are discussed, ultimately highlighting the importance of PCD expert networks to develop standardized guidelines and develop a standalone diagnostic tool. RECENT FINDINGS: PCD is underdiagnosed globally, reflecting overall awareness of this disease and limitations of diagnostic approaches. Over 50 disease-causing genes have been characterized, yet more are discovered each year. No single test can detect all PCD cases, therefore further research is needed to improve clinical options for diagnosis. SUMMARY: PCD is a genetic ciliopathy with serious health complications and impacts on quality of life. Clinical manifestation can vary significantly between individuals, which can delay diagnosis and negatively affect patient outcomes. Current diagnostic tests for PCD require significant resources and training to interpret, and the best-available tests may miss up to 30% of cases. Further work facilitated by expert collaborative networks will be instrumental to develop novel, enhanced diagnostic tools and ultimately improve outcomes for patients.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary MedicineSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207