Monday, August 3, 2026

Schoebers test demo

 [03/08, 14:59]hu2: OPD today

Young man with scleroderma, cutaneous vasculitic ulcers , digital infarcts, with spondyloarthropathy, severely reduced chest expansion of 1 cm with Schobers not done

[03/08, 21:41]hu2: Next patient had just low backache and while the schobers was forgotten in the previous patient where it was more likely to be positive, this image turned out to be a good demonstration of the elemental landmarks , bilateral si joint dimples and measurements that can be archived @hu1



Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

UDLCO CRH journal club: 6 more months of survival with RAS inhibitor in pancreatic ductal carcinoma

 Journal club Context: 


Here's an interesting celebrity cancer patient journey:

shared in December 2025 that he has metastatic pancreatic cancer, which has spread to multiple organs — including his liver and lungs.

After initially being given three to four months to live, Sasse, 54, entered a clinical trial for a drug called daraxonrasib, an oral therapy (pill) that is designed to block the defective gene that triggers uncontrolled cellular growth. 







Daraxonrasib is an oral RAS(ON) multiselective, tri-complex inhibitor of the active guanosine triphosphate–bound state of mutant and wild-type RAS.

Journal paper:

The landmark randomized controlled trial (RCT) establishing the efficacy of daraxonrasib is the Phase 3 RASolute 302 trial (NCT06625320). [1, 2]
The trial data formatted strictly using absolute values, counts, and absolute time intervals is detailed below:

PICO Framework: RASolute 302 Trial

  • P (Population): 500 adult patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Within this overall population, 459 patients harbored documented RAS G12 mutations. All individuals had progressed after 1 prior line of fluoropyrimidine- or gemcitabine-based systemic chemotherapy. [2, 3, 4, 5]

  • I (Intervention): 248 patients received oral single-agent daraxonrasib administered at a dose of 300 mg once daily. [1, 4]
  • C (Comparison): 252 patients received investigator's choice of standard intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy (including gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, mFOLFIRINOX, nal-IRI/5-FU/LV, or FOLFOX). [1, 6]
  • O (Outcomes):
Endpoint / MetricDaraxonrasib Arm ($N = 248$)Chemotherapy Arm ($N = 252$)
Median Overall Survival (Overall Cohort)13.2 months6.7 months
Median Overall Survival (RAS G12 Cohort)13.2 months6.6 months
Median Progression-Free Survival (Overall)7.2 months3.6 months
Median Progression-Free Survival (RAS G12)7.3 months3.5 months
Confirmed Objective Tumor Responses (Overall)78 patients28 patients
Confirmed Objective Tumor Responses (RAS G12)75 patients27 patients
Median Time to Pain Deterioration9.2 months3.8 months
Median Time to Global QOL Deterioration5.7 months2.6 months
Grade 3 or Higher Treatment-Related Adverse Events74 patientsData not fully reported in absolute counts
Detailed breakdowns of these absolute figures can be verified through the PubMed Abstract (NCT06625320) and the Revolution Medicines Investor Relations Portal. [2, 7]





From the trial data in PICO format shared above please share more patients events data from their individual records particularly their entire events trajectories that may explain the differences as a composite complex intermingling of causal factors rather than just daroxanrasib alone.


The full individual patient-level data (IPD), raw Case Report Forms (CRFs), and exact individual event trajectories for the 500 patients in the RASolute 302 trial are confidential, proprietary clinical trial records. They are restricted to the trial sponsors, investigators, and regulatory agencies like the FDA. Neither the New England Journal of Medicine publication nor the ASCO Plenary presentation releases individual, unblinded patient identities or full chronological logs. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
However, the trial reports do provide aggregate clinical variables and multi-causal factors that intermingle to explain why trajectories diverged so sharply between the two arms, beyond just the pharmacological mechanism of daraxonrasib. [3, 6]

1. Cumulative Toxicity Trajectories and Dosing Reductions

A patient's timeline is heavily dictated by their ability to stay on schedule. The difference in overall survival is tied directly to the cumulative, overlapping toxicities that cause treatment delays:
  • The Chemotherapy Trajectory: Standard intravenous chemotherapies carry cumulative hematologic toxicities. Over time, patients experience compounding neutropenia, anemia, and peripheral neuropathy. This frequently forces clinicians to delay cycles or reduce doses, causing a loss of dose density and allowing the tumor to escape. [6, 7]

  • The Daraxonrasib Trajectory: Side effects (like rash and stomatitis) generally manifest early, peak, and stabilize. They are managed effectively with oral antibiotics or topical steroids rather than treatment cessation. [2, 6, 8, 9]

  • Absolute Event Interruption Impact: While 111 patients in the chemotherapy arm had to temporarily or permanently interrupt treatment due to toxicities, only 3 patients in the daraxonrasib arm discontinued treatment permanently because of side effects. This means patients on daraxonrasib maintained continuous, uninterrupted target suppression for a longer duration. [3, 6]

2. Physical and Performance Status Degradation (The ECOG Cascade)

Advanced pancreatic cancer causes rapid physical decline due to cachexia, localized pain, and biliary complications. Once a patient's Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status drops from a functional state (ECOG 0 or 1) to a debilitated state (ECOG 2 or 3), they lose eligibility for any subsequent lines of active therapy. [2, 10, 11, 12]
  • Chemotherapy Arm: Patients experienced rapid, dual degradation from both aggressive tumor progression and chemotherapy-induced fatigue. The median time to global quality of life deterioration was short, at 2.6 months. When these patients progressed at a median of 3.5 to 3.6 months, their physical status was often too poor to tolerate further treatment, ending their trajectory. [3, 6, 10, 13]

  • Daraxonrasib Arm: The drug significantly delayed systemic deterioration, maintaining a functional ECOG status for a median of 5.7 months. Furthermore, it delayed pain progression to a median of 9.2 months. Even when their cancer eventually grew, these patients were physically robust enough to transition to subsequent salvage therapies, extending their overall survival timeline. [3, 13]

3. Subsequent Therapy Context and "Crossover" Dynamics

Overall survival numbers are not an isolated reflection of the second-line trial drug alone; they are a composite of what happens after a patient progresses on the trial. [14]
  • When a patient in the chemotherapy arm progressed at 3.6 months, clinicians had very few viable third-line regimens left to offer.

  • Conversely, because daraxonrasib is a novel RAS(ON) inhibitor with a completely different mechanism than traditional cytotoxics, patients progressing on daraxonrasib at 7.2 months still had traditional chemotherapy choices entirely preserved. Their extended survival reflects the success of a sequence: First Line $\rightarrow$ Daraxonrasib $\rightarrow$ Preserved Third Line. [10, 13, 15, 16, 17]

Summary of Intermingling Causal Vectors

A patient's overall survival trajectory is a complex web of events. The survival divergence in the RASolute 302 trial was driven by a combination of three factors:
  1. Continuous target inhibition made possible by avoiding the bone-marrow suppression typical of chemotherapy.
  2. Sustained physical fitness, which allowed the body to withstand tumor-induced stress for a longer period.
  3. Preservation of future treatment options after progression on the trial. [6, 10, 13, 18, 19]


Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, July 26, 2026

UDLCO CRH: Reverse thinking, pre mortem lens that asks how listed priority actions can be executed guaranteeing they completely fail to transform medical education

Using a reverse thinking (pre-mortem) lens, we can ask how the six listed priority actions can be executed guaranteeing they completely fail to transform medical education?"





Below is the reverse analysis of the priority actions, followed by direct answers to the reflection questions.

 1. How the 6 Priority Actions Will Fail (The Reverse Analysis)

Priority Action 1: 

"Develop faculty competence in CBME principles and assessment"

 How it will fail:"Tick-the-box" Faculty Development (FDP).

 Mechanism: Mandate high-volume, standard workshop attendance without measuring behavioral change in the clinic or classroom. Faculty learn the jargon (OSCE, WBA, DOPS, Entrustable Professional Activities) and use it to label their existing 20-year-old lecture slides. FDP becomes a mandatory credentialing chore rather than a cultural shift.

 Result:Faculty learn what CBME is theoretically, but continue teaching and assessing exactly as they always have.

Priority Action 2: "

Align assessment with competencies rather than rote recall"

 How it will fail:Superficial "Application-Style" Question Design.

 Mechanism: University and internal exams transition to long clinical vignettes, but the actual core question at the end still tests recall (e.g., a 10-line patient case ending in "What is the drug of choice?" or "Define X" ). In clinical practicals, examiners default to traditional viva voice grilling on rare syndromes rather than evaluating clinical reasoning or patient communication.

 Result: Students quickly realize they only need to memorize patterns and facts; the format changes, but the cognitive demand remains at Bloom's lowest level (recall).


Priority Action 3: "Ensure genuine observation and feedback for skill certification"

 How it will fail: Batch Sign-offs at 4:55 PM.

Mechanism: Overwhelmed clinicians with high patient-to-faculty ratios face 150+ students demanding skill sign-offs before end-of-posting deadlines. Without protected time for teaching, observation drops to 0%. Faculty sign off 30 logbooks in a single 10-minute queue based on attendance or subjective impression rather than observed skill execution.


Result: Certification turns into an administrative bottleneck that rewards student persistence in line-standing rather than clinical proficiency.



Priority Action 4: "Break departmental silos through integrated teaching"


How it will fail:"Serial Lectures" disguised as Integration.


Mechanism:Instead of co-designing a unified, organ-system module, departments simply chop up a 3-hour block: Pathology lectures for 50 minutes, Pharmacology for 50 minutes, and General Medicine for 50 minutes. No cross-disciplinary discussion happens, and teachers leave as soon as their slide deck finishes.


Result:The burden of integration is pushed entirely onto the student to synthesize isolated presentations, worsening cognitive overload rather than reducing it.


Priority Action 5: "Use logbooks as learning and feedback tools, not administrative records"


How it will fail:The "Doubt-Free" Compliance Trap.


Mechanism:** Logbooks are designed with complex rubrics and reflection sections, but faculty are given no time to read them. Students write generic reflections ("I learned a lot today and communicated well"), and faculty stamp them without written or verbal feedback. The logbook becomes an expensive ticket required to sit for the final university exam.


Result:Logbooks morph into the ultimate symbol of bureaucratic compliance, actively breeding cynicism among students and faculty toward CBME.

Priority Action 6: "Monitor implementation with regular quality assurance and educational audits"

How it will fail:Audit Inflation and Paper Compliance.

Mechanism: Institutions prepare for educational audits the same way they prepare for traditional regulatory visits: by forging records, pre-filling logbooks, and generating pristine, paper-perfect documentation. Inspectors check whether the forms exist and signatures are present, never observing an actual workplace-based assessment in real time.

Result: The system creates a double reality—a flawless paper-trail CBME curriculum on audit day, and a traditional, unmonitored environment every other day.


Answers to Reflection Questions


Q1: If students can pass without demonstrating competence, what aspect of CBME has failed?


The Construct Validity of Assessment has failed.

At its core, CBME relies on a single non-negotiable premise: Assessment drives learning, and certification guarantees performance.
If a student can pass through rote memorization or unobserved logbook sign-offs without performing the actual skill, the assessment system has failed to function as a gatekeeper. 

Specifically, Constructed Alignment (aligning intended learning outcomes with actual assessment methods) has collapsed. The system measures exposure (time spent in a department) and knowledge about a skill, rather than entrustability (the ability to safely perform the skill unassisted).

Q2: Which failure is easiest to overlook because it appears compliant?

Logbook Completion without Authentic Assessment (The "Illusion of Compliance").

This is the most insidious failure in the entire CBME framework because, on paper, it looks 100% successful.

 Why it gets overlooked: A completed logbook satisfies administrators, internal quality assurance cells, and external inspection teams. Every box is ticked, every competency code is noted, and every signature is present.

The reality:It conceals the total absence of direct workplace observation and formative feedback. It converts a tool designed for continuous reflective learning into a glorified attendance register, masking incompetence behind a facade of complete administrative compliance.

Key Takeaway

CBME 2024 will not fail because of flawed curriculum documents; it will fail if institutions attempt to run a competency-based model using a compliance-based mindset. When administrative paper completion is prioritised over actual clinical observation, the system retains all the extra workload of CBME with none of its educational benefits.



Next prompt:

Using a reverse thinking approach explore how the planned priorities listed below (in the context of failure of CBME 2024 detailed below) are likely to fail:

Priority Actions

  1. Develop faculty competence in CBME principles and assessment.

  2. Align assessment with competencies rather than rote recall.

  3. Ensure genuine observation and feedback for skill certification.

  4. Break departmental silos through integrated teaching.

  5. Use logbooks as learning and feedback tools, not administrative records.

  6. Monitor implementation with regular quality assurance and educational audits.


On Sun, 26 Jul 2026, 20:35 hu1> wrote:

Using a reverse thinking approach, let's ask not:

"How will CBME 2024 succeed?"

but instead:

"How could we guarantee that CBME 2024 fails?"

The CBME 2024 curriculum is designed to produce an Indian Medical Graduate who is competent, patient-centered, ethical, and capable of lifelong learning through integrated, competency-based education.

Reverse Question

What would make CBME 2024 fail completely?

Failure Analysis

1. Curriculum Design Failure

Failure mechanism

  • Treat CBME as merely a renamed traditional curriculum.

  • Continue emphasizing content coverage over competency attainment.

  • Ignore integration across disciplines.

  • Overload students with factual knowledge while neglecting skills.

Root cause
Faculty misunderstanding of CBME philosophy.

Success strategy
Train faculty to teach and assess competencies rather than just deliver lectures.

2. Faculty Failure

Failure mechanism

  • No faculty development.

  • Resistance to educational change.

  • "We've always taught this way."

  • Poor understanding of workplace-based assessment.

Root cause
Change management failure.

Success strategy
Continuous faculty development, mentoring, peer observation, and educational leadership.

3. Assessment Failure

The curriculum repeatedly emphasizes competency certification, logbooks, internal assessment, and application-based university examinations.

Failure mechanism

  • Test only recall.

  • Ignore clinical skills.

  • Ignore attitudes.

  • Ignore communication.

  • Sign competencies without observation.

  • Treat logbooks as paperwork.

Root cause
Assessment remains knowledge-centric.

Success strategy
Assess what matters: skills, professionalism, reasoning, and communication in authentic settings.

4. Integration Failure

CBME expects both horizontal and vertical integration using clinical linker cases and integrated modules.

Failure mechanism

  • Departments work independently.

  • No integrated teaching.

  • Duplicate topics.

  • No clinical context.

Root cause
Departmental silos.

Success strategy
Regular interdisciplinary planning and integrated teaching sessions.

5. Early Clinical Exposure Failure

Failure mechanism

  • Patients become passive demonstrations.

  • Students only observe.

  • No reflection.

  • No linkage to basic sciences.

Root cause
ECE becomes ceremonial instead of educational.

Success strategy
Structured patient encounters linked to learning objectives and reflection.

6. AETCOM Failure

The curriculum describes AETCOM as a longitudinal program emphasizing ethics, communication, empathy, professionalism, and system-based care.

Failure mechanism

  • Teach ethics only through lectures.

  • Never observe communication.

  • Ignore empathy.

  • Never give feedback.

Root cause
Professionalism treated as theoretical knowledge.

Success strategy
Role plays, simulated patients, workplace observation, and reflective practice.

7. Learner Failure

Failure mechanism

  • Memorize instead of understanding.

  • Study only before exams.

  • Ignore self-directed learning.

  • Avoid reflection.

Root cause
Examination-driven culture.

Success strategy
Promote active learning, reflection, feedback, and self-directed learning.

8. Institutional Failure

Failure mechanism

  • No skills laboratory.

  • Inadequate patient exposure.

  • Faculty shortage.

  • Overcrowded clinical postings.

Root cause
Insufficient institutional support.

Success strategy
Invest in educational infrastructure, simulation, and adequate supervision.

9. Logbook Failure

Failure mechanism

  • Sign competencies without observation.

  • Fabricate entries.

  • Never review progress.

  • Treat documentation as compliance.

Root cause
Loss of educational purpose.

Success strategy
Direct observation, meaningful feedback, and periodic review.

10. Leadership Failure

Failure mechanism

  • No CBME committee.

  • No monitoring.

  • No educational audits.

  • No accountability.

Root cause
Weak governance.

Success strategy
Strong academic leadership with regular curriculum review and quality improvement.

Failure Tree (Simplified)

CBME Failure

  • Curriculum misunderstood

  • Faculty unprepared

  • Assessment unchanged

  • Integration absent

  • Skills not observed

  • Logbooks become paperwork

  • Poor institutional support

  • Student remains exam-oriented

  • Weak leadership

  • No continuous quality improvement

Highest-Risk Failure Points

RiskLikelihoodImpactPriority
Faculty resistanceHighVery HighCritical
Recall-based assessmentHighVery HighCritical
Fake competency certificationHighVery HighCritical
Poor integrationHighHighHigh
Inadequate feedbackHighHighHigh
Logbook compliance without learningHighHighHigh
Infrastructure limitationsModerateHighHigh

Reverse Insights

The greatest threat to CBME 2024 is not the curriculum itself. The document already incorporates competency-based outcomes, integration, AETCOM, learner-doctor clinical training, workplace-based assessment, and competency certification.

The greatest threat is implementing a competency-based curriculum with a traditional mindset. If teaching, assessment, faculty behavior, and institutional culture remain unchanged, the curriculum can become a paper exercise rather than a transformation in medical education.

Priority Actions

  1. Develop faculty competence in CBME principles and assessment.

  2. Align assessment with competencies rather than rote recall.

  3. Ensure genuine observation and feedback for skill certification.

  4. Break departmental silos through integrated teaching.

  5. Use logbooks as learning and feedback tools, not administrative records.

  6. Monitor implementation with regular quality assurance and educational audits.

Reflection Questions

  • If students can pass without demonstrating competence, what aspect of CBME has failed?

  • Which failure is easiest to overlook because it appears compliant (e.g., completed logbooks without authentic assessment)?

  • What organizational changes are needed so that the hidden curriculum—what students observe in daily practice—supports rather than undermines the formal CBME curriculum?


--

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, July 15, 2026

UDLCO CRH from the hidden curriculum: From dyadic patient physician conversations to triadic physician physician conversations and beyond around DPGN wire loops and their many etiologies and comorbidities

 Summary


Introduction

The diagnostic hallmark of Lupus Nephritis (Class IV) is often associated with a "full-house" immunofluorescence pattern (simultaneous deposition of IgG, IgA, IgM, C3, and C1q) and "wire loop" subendothelial lesions on light microscopy. However, these features are not pathognomonic for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE). Clinicians frequently face "non-lupus full-house nephropathy" triggered by other infections, secondary glomerular diseases, or C1q nephropathy.

In parallel, a major challenge in modern medical education is that a vast portion of clinical reasoning occurs during informal, peer-to-peer (dyadic) discussions. Because these exchanges happen dynamically over digital chat applications (e.g., WhatsApp) or at the bedside, they are rarely archived, published, or integrated into the global medical literature due to patient confidentiality, data decay, and a lack of systemic institutional support. This leaves a significant gap in the documented literature of "hidden curriculum" patient-centered learning.

Methods

This qualitative, retrospective case-and-transcript analysis evaluated:


  1. Clinical Data: A 33-year-old male presenting with acute heart failure, metabolic syndrome features, severe pedal edema, proteinuria ($2000\text{ mg}/24\text{h}$), and hypertension ($140/60$ to $160/90\text{ mmHg}$). A renal biopsy revealed full-house immunofluorescence, but serological screens (ANA, ENA profile, ds-DNA, and ANCA) were strictly negative.


  3. Educational Data: Three distinct dyadic conversational threads (between learners hu1, hu2, hu3, and hu4) spanning clinical WhatsApp chats and personal medical blog archives were qualitatively analyzed using a thematic approach to evaluate diagnostic reasoning and peer-to-peer educational knowledge translation.


Results

  • Pathological Findings: The 33-year-old male was confirmed to have seronegative non-lupus full-house nephropathy, likely secondary to post-infectious glomerulonephritis (PIGN) or early-stage C1q nephropathy, complicated by hypertensive cardiovascular congestion (heart failure).


  • Educational Findings: Dyadic conversations successfully corrected a premature diagnostic anchor (assuming a "wire loop" and "full-house" pattern meant Lupus). However, the transcripts revealed severe data vulnerability—the case details were nearly lost ("out of sight, out of mind") because no formal institutional group or registry had been created to log the patient’s clinical course.


Discussion

Clinically, this case reinforces that "wire loop" lesions and full-house immunofluorescence can occur in non-lupus states like post-streptococcal/post-infectious glomerulonephritis (PSGN/PIGN) and diabetic nephropathy.

Pedagogically, medical trainees possess highly functional diagnostic reasoning networks (evident in their spontaneous cross-referencing of historic cases, such as the 47-year-old diabetic female with chylous ascites from 2022). Yet, this informal clinical knowledge is highly ephemeral. Without structured systemic tools or institutional "micro-publishing" platforms, these invaluable educational dialogues remain trapped in private messaging apps, depriving the wider global learning community of rich, real-world diagnostic workflows.


Keywords


  • Pathology: Diffuse Proliferative Glomerulonephritis (DPGN); Non-Lupus Full-House Nephropathy; Wire Loop Lesions; Post-Infectious Glomerulonephritis (PIGN); Seronegative SLE.

  • Pedagogy & Medical Education: Dyadic Learning; Hidden Curriculum; Informal Knowledge Translation; Data Decay; Case-Based Reasoning; Micro-Archiving.







Thematic Analysis


Theme 1: Pathological Pitfalls of "Full-House" & "Wire-Loop" Patterns

Medical trainees frequently experience a strong cognitive bias that equates "wire loop" subendothelial deposits and full-house immunofluorescence exclusively with Lupus Nephritis. The clinical transcripts highlight how the expert and the peer-to-peer review dismantle this assumption:


  • Etiological Diversity: While Class IV Lupus Nephritis is the most common cause of Diffuse Proliferative Glomerulonephritis (DPGN), other triggers must be ruled out.


  • Differential Diagnoses: Non-lupus full-house nephropathy can be caused by infectious agents (e.g., Post-Infectious Glomerulonephritis or PIGN), C1q nephropathy, or IgA nephropathy.


  • Serology Correlation: In the 33-year-old male, the complete absence of systemic markers (Negative ANA, ENA, ds-DNA, and ANCA) forces clinicians to step away from an autoimmune SLE label and monitor the patient for future seroconversion.


Diagnostic MarkerPatient ValueClinical Significance
ANA (ELISA)0.39 Index (Negative)Rules out active systemic classical SLE
ds-DNA$6.14\text{ IU/ml}$ (Negative)Decreases probability of Lupus Nephritis
C1q Stain (Biopsy)High IntensityPoints toward C1q Nephropathy or PIGN
Proteinuria$2000\text{ mg}/24\text{h}$Moderate-range nephrotic/nephritic spillover

Theme 2: Comorbidity and Phenotypic Mimicry

The patient’s presentation demonstrates how multi-system comorbidities can cloud the primary renal pathology:


  • Cardiovascular Overlap: The patient's initial presentation of pulmonary edema and volume overload was anchored as "heart failure" by some team members.


  • Hypertensive Acceleration: Severe fluid retention from acute glomerulonephritis (AGN) coupled with a metabolic syndrome phenotype (abdominal adiposity, hypertension) precipitated an acute cardiac decompensation (LVF).


  • Pathology vs. Presentation: Trainee hu2 clarifies a fundamental medical concept for hu1: DPGN is a histopathological description, whereas PSGN or Lupus are the clinical etiologies.


Theme 3: The Educational Epistemology of Dyadic Conversations

The transcripts provide a rare window into how medical students actually learn when off the clock:


"I see the struggle of not storing the data now 😅... Data is supposed to be in your and my brain." — hu1


  • Cognitive Scaffolding through Chats: Trainees use instant messaging to run rapid case-based reasoning loops, matching current patients with memories of past patients (e.g., recalling a diabetic patient with chylous ascites from a 2022 blog post).


  • The "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" Phenomenon: Memory is a fragile storage medium. Once a patient is discharged, the clinical dataset decays rapidly. Without an immediate digital registry, vital diagnostic parameters (like blood pressure ranges or biopsy delays) are lost to history.


Theme 4: The Hidden Curriculum and Barriers to Global Knowledge Translation

Medical education literature often ignores the informal interactions that dictate how clinical decisions are actually made.


[ Bedside Dynamic Discussion ] ──(No Registry/Privacy Laws)──> [ Private WhatsApp ] ──> [ Lost to Global Community ]

  • The Private-Public Divide: Highly instructive medical debates happen in private dyads. Because there is "nil systems support" to easily sanitize and share these conversations, they never reach a wider audience.


  • Consent and Systems Obstacles: Trainees face administrative roadblocks when trying to document and archive cases (e.g., hu1 failing to reach a "patient advocate" to set up a shared learning group).


  • The Solution of Micro-Blogging: Trainee hu4 bypasses institutional barriers by maintaining a personal, anonymized learning blog. This acts as an informal, searchable archive that can rescue peer learners from clinical dead ends years later.


Provide an imrad summary, keywords and thematic analysis of the content below focusing on not just the topic of "DPGN wire loops and their many etiologies and comorbidities" but alsoo the medical educators perspective on how a lot is learned by medical students around real patients in the form of dyadic conversations that are often never published and shared with a wider learning community due to various reasons such as patient privacy, confidentiality and nil systems support eventually keeping a lot of these hidden curricular learnings from global knowledge that may have otherwise enriched the patient centred leaning literature positively.

Case 1 conversational learning Transcripts:

Two learners hu1 and hu2 discuss a patient for the second time rekindled by an interesting biopsy report even as the patient became out of sight out of mind 

[23/05, 09:42]hu1: this is the renal biopsy report of the male patient in last bed in amc


[23/05, 09:42]hu1: You told he had heart failure 😅


[23/05, 09:45]hu1: Turns out lupus features

[23/05, 09:45]hu1: Male lupus!

[23/05, 09:47]hu2: Did we have a group for him?

It's so easy to foil one's case based reasoning attempts with missing data! 

By the way class 4 appearance may suggest Lupus but is not synonymous with it although again this does suggest an immune mediated etiology to his heart failure as well

Will need to review the entire case if it has been stored anywhere


[23/05, 09:48]hu1: We didn't have a group unfortunately


[23/05, 09:48]hu1: I can still try to make it now


[23/05, 09:49]hu1: Data is supposed to be in your and my brain 😅


[23/05, 09:49]hu1: I just thought you may remember him


[23/05, 09:49]hu2: Any prior discussion? Couldn't find it with 33M in the search


[23/05, 09:49]hu2: When was it?


[23/05, 09:50]hu1: When you were there here


[23/05, 09:51]hu1: He was present at the time of ?adem z positive case


[23/05, 09:57]hu2: Last month?

Any discussion we had above?


[23/05, 09:57]hu1: Not in any groups


[23/05, 09:57]hu1: But in the icu

[23/05, 09:57]hu1: This month only

[23/05, 09:58]hu2: Which bed?


[23/05, 09:59]hu2: How many days did we discuss him?

[23/05, 09:59]hu1: In ... bed 


[23/05, 09:59]hu1: 3 or 4 days maybe


[23/05, 10:00]hu2: Opposite to the ... bed?


[23/05, 10:00]hu1: I mean in the opposite row yes

[23/05, 10:00]hu2: Abdominal adiposity?

What were his presenting problems?

[23/05, 10:00]hu1: I see the struggle of not storing the data now😅


[23/05, 10:01]hu2: Yes those of us who don't get to interact with the patient everyday and also interact with many other patients online may have this problem


[23/05, 10:01]hu1: Pedal edema, abdominal distension,facial puffiness


[23/05, 10:01]hu1: 24 hr urinary protein was around 2000


[23/05, 10:02]hu1: I'll try to make it now


[23/05, 10:02]hu2: Now I remembered!

His wife and other relatives were proactive and wanted to know from me what was the issue

And I remember our diagnosis was AGN AKI with heart failure as well


[23/05, 10:04]hu1: Yes 


[23/05, 10:04]hu1: This is the patient


[23/05, 10:05]hu2: Yes


[23/05, 10:06]hu2: Recall vividly now 

[23/05, 10:06]hu1: His symptoms predominantly can't be attributed to the lupus nephritis?


[23/05, 10:11]hu2: Why would it?

[23/05, 10:07]hu2: Check out other causes of diffuse proliferative glomerulonephritis, DPGN which is what it looks like even in the biopsy findings

While Lupus is a common cause of DPGN it's not the only cause

[23/05, 10:10]hu1: Ok 

[23/05, 10:11]hu2: Almost all known causes of AGN including PSGN fits this biopsy report 👇


[23/05, 10:14]hu2: While both of us are able to learn these the problem with this dyadic approach is that majority of others will not be able to learn the same and even though we may feel more knowledgeable about DPGN after this in comparison to others who aren't learning this way, as a result of our knowledge being restricted to us alone others will not be able to understand or believe us when we share this insight next time unless we publish it ASAP


[23/05, 17:46]hu1: I'm trying to make a pajr group,not able to contact the pt advocate

[23/05, 17:46]hu2: Yes I need to know how is he currently

Also did he have any documented Hypertension while being admitted with us?

[23/05, 17:47]hu2: They sent the report after 10 days after it was reported?

[23/05, 17:47]hu1: Yes 

[23/05, 17:47]hu1: Almost 20 days

[23/05, 17:47]hu1: Result of ana that was also sent

[23/05, 17:49]hu2: Excellent!👏

Thanks for sharing this

It kind of vindicates my stand on DPGN and the fact that wire loop doesn't suggest Lupus automatically

[23/05, 17:54]hu1: ana is non specific

[23/05, 17:56]hu2: All markers for Lupus here are negative

How many ARA criterias of the 11 does this patient satisfy?

[23/05, 17:57]hu2: ANA negative lupus is known (we have reported it ourselves a decade ago) but relatively rare

[23/05, 17:58]hu1: Here’s the summary of *Mr.  33M's ANA and ANCA reports* from 14-May-2026:

*1. ANA - Anti Nuclear Antibody*
- *Result: 0.39 Index Value* → *Negative* [< 1.0 is Negative]
- Method: ELISA

*2. ANA Profile / ENA Profile - Qualitative*
Method: Immunoblot  
*All antigens tested were Negative:*
- dsDNA, Nucleosome, Histone, SmD1, PCNA, P0(RPP)
- SS-A/Ro60, SS-A/Ro52, SS-B/La, CENP-B
- Scl-70, U1-snRNP, AMA M2, Jo-1, PM-Scl, Mi-2, Ku, DFS-70

*3. Anti ds-DNA Antibody* 
- *Result: 6.14 IU/ml* → *Negative* [< 25 is Negative]
- Method: ELISA

*4. ANCA Tests*
- *p-ANCA (Myeloperoxidase): 12.41 AU/mL* → *Negative* [<20 is Negative]
- *c-ANCA (Serine Proteinase 3): 7.48 AU/mL* → *Negative* [<16 is Negative]
- Method: ELISA for both

*Other*
- *ESR*: 07 mm at 1st hr → *Normal* [<15]

*Key finding*: All ANA, ENA, dsDNA, and ANCA markers are negative/normal in this serology report.


[23/05, 18:28]hu2: What was his range of BP in the charts and what anti hypertensives did he receive?


[23/05, 19:56] Another dyadic conversation between hu3 expert in evaluating renal biopsies and hu2 learner.

hu2 to hu3: [23/05, 18:22]: My question is how common is it to think of other causes of DPGN whenever one sees wire loop glomeruli and not jump straight to the conclusion of Lupus nephritis?

Almost all known causes of AGN including PSGN fits this biopsy report ?👇



[23/05, 19:42]hu3: 

Good evening 

This case looks like non lupus full house nephropathy.

There are many etiological factors which could be the underlying cause.

Infectious agents are one of the important triggers,for such cases therefore PIGN cannot be ruled out.

Apart from infections, secondary glomerular diseases can also precipitate the above condition.

Since C1q stain intensity is more,C1q nephropathy can be one of the dds.

However this case needs close monitoring as sometimes kidney immune deposits are the first manifestation before the pt develops  positive seroconversion for autoimmune diseases such as lupus nephritis.

C3& C4 levels ,were they been done?

[23/05, 19:53]hu2 : Thanks. Yes agree.

His C3 and C4 is attached. Just realised I hadn't shared those.


Another dyadic conversation initiated by learner hu2 with hu4 as both of them had seen a similar patient years ago in the past:

[03/06, 14:45]hu2: Do you remember the diabetic lady with nephrotic syn you evaluated with a renal biopsy along with ... while he was SR and the patient was presented in one of the Thursday clinical meetings?

The thing which stayed with me was:

Wire loop lesions may not mean Lupus all the time and DPGN can be due to other causes.

Can you share any details of the patient if archived?

[03/06, 18:50]hu4: Is this the patient with chylous ascites..? I will check my blog  and share.


This is a case report of 47 year old female with chylous ascites where we did her biopsy and got wire loops


Her previous admission

[03/06, 19:01]hu4: She was diabetic for 6-7 yrs

[03/06, 19:20]hu2: Thanks.

Yes we thought about non diabetic kidney disease for her current presentation of nephrotic syndrome perhaps because the presentation was quite stormy and her duration of Diabetes not so long

[03/06, 19:57]hu2: Would you happen to have the PPT you had presented that day during the clinical meeting in the mini auditorium?

[03/06, 21:03]hu2: Would you like to also archive this as images in your blog?

Back to dyadic conversations between two learners hu1 and hu2 

[23/05, 21:27]hu1: around 140-160


[23/05, 21:28]hu2: Diastolic?

[23/05, 21:30]hu1: 140/60-150/90,160/90 around this range


[23/05, 21:31]hu1: So it's psgn presenting with as dpgn

[23/05, 21:32]hu2: DPGN is pathology

PSGN is one of the many etiologies

[23/05, 21:32]hu1: Oh
[23/05, 21:32]hu1: Ok 
[23/05, 21:33]hu2: Heart failure then?
[23/05, 21:33]hu1: You were convinced he had heart failure
[23/05, 21:35]hu2: Off course I'm still convinced

LVF causing confusion due to it's manifesting symptoms with pulmonary edema is pretty common

[23/05, 21:37]hu2: With his metabolic syn phenotype heart failure was likely however it was perhaps precipitated by whatever immunological abnormality it was that caused immune complex deposition in his glomeruli

[24/05, 10:12]hu1: Possibly


POSTER ABSTRACT FOR some worldly conference 2026





INTRODUCTION:

Full-house nephropathy is characterized by a renal biopsy immunofluorescence pattern demonstrating the simultaneous deposition of all major immunoreactants, including IgG, IgA, IgM, C3, and C1q.

CASE REPORT:

A 33 year old male presented with cough since 6 days,cough without expectoration ,no positional variation,no diurnal variation 
B/L pedal edema since 3 days, pitting type,grade-3 extending upto the knee associated with abdominal distension and facial puffiness 

With decreased urine output since 3 days

KEY FINDINGS:
B/L pedal edema
Proteinuria
Hypertension

DISCUSSION:
Although the full-house immunofluorescence pattern on renal biopsy is considered a hallmark of lupus nephritis, it is not pathognomonic for SLE. Full-house nephropathy can also be observed in a variety of non-lupus renal diseases, presenting a diagnostic challenge
DIAGNOSTIC DILEMMA:Full house nephropathy without clinical signs of SLE AND ANA negative

References:

Uzzo M, Kronbichler A, Alberici F, Bajema I. Nonlupus full house nephropathy: a systematic review. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2024;19(6):743-754.

Wani AS, Zahir Z, Gupta A, Agrawal V. Clinicopathological pattern of non-lupus full house nephropathy. Indian J Nephrol. 2020;30(5):301-306.

Dias CB, Testagrossa LA, Malheiros DM, Jorge L, Woronik V. Idiopathic non-lupus full house nephropathy compared to lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28(Abstract Suppl):FR-PO734.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)