Re-evaluating PICADAR: Performance Limitations in Genetically Confirmed Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Diagnosis

Abstract

This article critically examines the diagnostic performance of the PICADAR (PrImary CiliARy DyskinesiA Rule) prediction tool in cohorts with genetically confirmed Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD). Recent evidence reveals significant limitations in PICADAR's sensitivity, particularly for patients without laterality defects or hallmark ultrastructural defects. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, this analysis covers foundational principles, methodological application, troubleshooting of current limitations, and comparative validation against genetic testing. The synthesis underscores the urgent need for refined diagnostic algorithms and novel predictive tools to improve early PCD detection and patient stratification for clinical trials.

Understanding PICADAR: Origins, Design, and Its Role in PCD Diagnostic Pathways

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder inherited predominantly in an autosomal recessive pattern, characterized by defective motile cilia function leading to impaired mucociliary clearance [1]. This disease represents a significant diagnostic challenge in respiratory medicine due to its extensive clinical and genetic variability, absence of a single gold standard diagnostic test, and frequent underdiagnosis, particularly in adult populations [2]. The estimated prevalence of PCD has historically been reported between 1:10,000 to 1:20,000 live births, though recent genetic database analyses suggest a higher minimum prevalence of at least 1:7,554 individuals globally [3] [4]. The complexity of PCD arises from its multifaceted etiology, with mutations in over 50 identified genes encoding various ciliary proteins that result in different ultrastructural defects and functional impairments [1]. This heterogeneity manifests clinically through varied presentations including recurrent respiratory tract infections, chronic rhinosinusitis, otitis media, bronchiectasis, and in approximately half of patients, laterality defects such as situs inversus or heterotaxy [1]. Understanding this diagnostic complexity is crucial for researchers and drug development professionals working to improve detection methods and develop targeted therapies.

Genetic and Clinical Heterogeneity in PCD

Genetic Architecture of PCD

The genetic landscape of PCD is characterized by remarkable locus heterogeneity, with mutations in more than 40-50 identified genes associated with the disorder [1]. Ongoing genetic research continues to uncover new disease-associated genes, expanding our understanding of the molecular basis of ciliary dysfunction. The majority of PCD cases follow an autosomal recessive inheritance pattern, where mutations disrupt proteins essential for cilia structure, movement, and control [1]. The structure of motile cilia comprises several key elements, with the axoneme displaying a characteristic "9+2" microtubule arrangement—nine peripheral microtubule doublets surrounding a central pair of single microtubules [1]. These structural components are interconnected by nexin links and radial spokes, creating the complex architecture necessary for proper ciliary function.

Table 1: Major Genetic Mutations and Associated Ultrastructural Defects in PCD

Ultrastructural Defect	Mutated Genes	Clinical and Functional Correlations
Outer Dynein Arm (ODA) Defects	DNAH5, DNAI1, DNAI2, DNAL1, CCDC114, CCDC151, ARMC4	Often associated with a milder disease course; DNAH5 is the most frequently mutated locus [1]
ODA + Inner Dynein Arm (IDA) Defects	DNAAF1-3, HEATR2, LRRC50, DYX1C1, ZMYND10, SPAG1, CCDC103	Defects in dynein assembly and transport proteins [1]
IDA Defects	KTU	Isolated inner dynein arm abnormalities [1]
Microtubule Disorganization (MTD)	CCDC39, CCDC40, GAS8*	More severe disease course with greater bronchiectasis tendency; also affects IDA ultrastructure [1]
Central Pair (CP) Defects	HYDIN, RSPH9#, RSPH4A#	Abnormal swirling ciliary beat pattern; no situs inversus risk as nodal cilia naturally lack CP [1]

*Besides MTD, mutation in the gene also affects IDA ultrastructure

Besides MTD, mutation in the gene also affects CP ultrastructure

Ethnic Variations in Genetic Etiology

Recent research has revealed significant ethnic heterogeneity in PCD genetic etiology, challenging previous assumptions based predominantly on European and North American studies. The estimated prevalence of PCD is higher in individuals of African ancestry compared to most other populations [3]. The distribution of causative genes differs substantially across ethnicities, with the top five genes most commonly implicated in PCD showing notable variation between populations [4]. This ethnic heterogeneity has profound implications for global case identification strategies and the development of targeted genetic testing panels suitable for diverse populations.

Table 2: Ethnic Heterogeneity in PCD Prevalence and Genetic Causes

Ethnicity	Estimated Prevalence (Excluding VUS)	Key Genetic Differences
African/African American	1:9,906	Higher overall prevalence; distinct gene distribution [4]
Non-Finnish European	1:10,388	Traditionally described patterns (DNAH5, DNAH11, DNAI1, CCDC39, CCDC40) [3]
East Asian	1:14,606	Different gene distribution compared to European studies [4]
Latino	1:16,309	Unique genetic profile [4]
Overall Global Minimum	1:7,554	Aggregate across ethnicities [3]

Diagnostic Approaches and Methodologies

Diagnostic Tools and Their Limitations

The diagnosis of PCD requires a multifaceted approach due to the absence of a single test with high sensitivity and specificity [1]. Current guidelines recommend that patients be investigated in specialist PCD centers with access to a range of complementary tests [2]. The diagnostic process typically involves a combination of clinical evaluation and specialized testing to achieve a definitive diagnosis.

Figure 1: PCD Diagnostic Pathway - This flowchart illustrates the multi-step diagnostic process for PCD, from initial patient identification through definitive testing and management.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) Measurement Protocol

Nasal nitric oxide measurement serves as a valuable screening tool in PCD diagnosis. The experimental protocol involves using a chemiluminescence analyzer to measure nasal NO levels during velum closure maneuvers. Patients are instructed to breath-hold while air is aspirated from the nasal cavity at a constant flow rate, typically 0.3 L/min, with exhalation against resistance to ensure velum closure [2]. The test requires cooperative patients, limiting its utility in young children under 5 years of age. Interpretation criteria consistently show that nNO values in PCD patients are extremely low, generally below 100 nL/min, compared to normal values typically exceeding 200 nL/min in healthy individuals [2]. However, limitations include reduced discriminatory power in children under age 8 and the potential for false positives in conditions like cystic fibrosis.

High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis (HSVA) Protocol

HSVA enables direct assessment of ciliary beat frequency and pattern using freshly obtained nasal epithelial cells. The methodology involves obtaining nasal brush biopsies from the inferior turbinate or carina, immediately transferring samples to cell culture medium, and analyzing them within 24 hours to maintain ciliary viability [1] [2]. Samples are recorded at high frame rates (≥500 frames per second) using phase-contrast or interference-contrast microscopy, with analysis of ciliary beat frequency, pattern, and coordination. Characteristic abnormalities in PCD include immotile cilia, dyskinetic or stiff beats with reduced amplitude, and uncoordinated or circular beating patterns [2]. The main limitations include requirements for specialized equipment, immediate processing, and expertise in interpretation, with potential secondary dyskinesia due to infection or inflammation complicating analysis.

Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) Protocol

TEM provides ultrastructural analysis of ciliary components, requiring nasal or bronchial biopsy specimens to be immediately fixed in glutaraldehyde, processed through resin embedding, and sectioned for electron microscopy evaluation [1] [2]. The protocol involves quantitative assessment of dynein arms, microtubule arrangement, and other axonemal components, with analysis of multiple cilia cross-sections. Key diagnostic findings include absence or shortening of outer dynein arms, inner dynein arm defects, microtubular disorganization, and central pair defects [1]. Limitations include invasiveness of the procedure, potential processing artifacts, and the presence of normal ultrastructure in approximately 30% of genetically confirmed PCD cases [1].

Genetic Testing Methodology

Comprehensive genetic testing represents an increasingly important diagnostic approach, typically involving next-generation sequencing panels targeting known PCD genes [1] [5]. The methodology includes DNA extraction from blood or saliva, library preparation, sequencing, and bioinformatic analysis for variant calling. Variant interpretation follows established guidelines (ACMG/AMP) to classify variants as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, variants of uncertain significance, likely benign, or benign [3]. Diagnostic confirmation requires identification of biallelic pathogenic variants in trans configuration for autosomal recessive inheritance [5]. Limitations include incomplete knowledge of all disease-causing genes, challenges in variant interpretation, and the inability to detect certain types of mutations like deep intronic variants with standard panels.

Critical Analysis of PICADAR as a Diagnostic Predictive Tool

Performance Limitations in Genetically Confirmed PCD

The Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Rule (PICADAR) is a diagnostic predictive tool recommended by the European Respiratory Society to assess PCD likelihood, but recent evidence reveals significant limitations in its performance, particularly in genetically confirmed PCD cases [6]. A 2025 study evaluating 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD demonstrated that PICADAR had an overall sensitivity of only 75%, meaning approximately one-quarter of genuine PCD cases would be missed using this tool alone [6]. The tool's initial question excludes all individuals without daily wet cough from further evaluation, which resulted in 7% (18 individuals) of genetically confirmed PCD patients being ruled out immediately [6]. This fundamental structural limitation highlights the tool's inadequacy in capturing the full clinical spectrum of PCD.

Table 3: PICADAR Performance Metrics in Genetically Confirmed PCD

Patient Subgroup	Sensitivity	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)	Clinical Implications
Overall PCD Population	75% (202/269)	7 (5-9)	One-quarter of true PCD cases missed [6]
With Laterality Defects	95%	10 (8-11)	Good performance in classic presentation [6]
With Situs Solitus (normal arrangement)	61%	6 (4-8)	Poor performance in absence of laterality defects [6]
With Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	83%	N/R	Moderate performance [6]
Without Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	59%	N/R	Inadequate performance [6]

Impact on Patient Identification and Referral Patterns

The suboptimal performance of PICADAR has significant implications for patient identification and referral to specialist centers. The tool demonstrates particularly poor sensitivity in PCD patients without laterality defects (61%) and those without hallmark ultrastructural defects (59%) [6]. This finding is clinically important as these patient subgroups often present diagnostic challenges and may experience delayed diagnosis even without flawed screening tools. The reliance on PICADAR as a primary triage method could potentially perpetuate the underdiagnosis of atypical PCD presentations, contributing to the documented delay between symptom onset and definitive diagnosis, which often involves 40 or more medical visits [2]. These limitations underscore the need for more sophisticated predictive tools that incorporate genetic and molecular data alongside clinical features to improve detection rates across the PCD spectrum.

Research Reagents and Methodological Solutions

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Advancing PCD research and improving diagnostic capabilities requires a comprehensive toolkit of specialized reagents and methodologies. The table below outlines key research reagents and their applications in PCD investigation.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Investigation

Research Reagent/Method	Primary Application	Key Function in PCD Research
Antibodies for Immunofluorescence (IF)	Protein localization and defect identification	Visualizes specific ciliary protein defects; complements TEM findings [1] [5]
Next-Generation Sequencing Panels	Genetic diagnosis and discovery	Identifies pathogenic variants in >50 PCD-associated genes [1] [3]
Electron Microscopy Reagents	Ultrastructural analysis	Preserves and contrasts ciliary components for TEM evaluation [1] [2]
Cell Culture Media for Ciliary Studies	Ciliary function analysis	Maintains ciliary viability for HSVA and functional studies [2]
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell (iPSC) Systems	Functional validation of genetic variants	Assesses ciliary motility rescue after gene correction [7]

Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

The field of PCD diagnosis is rapidly evolving with several promising experimental approaches emerging. Gene therapy and mRNA-based treatments represent novel therapeutic strategies currently under investigation [1]. The use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) established from patients' peripheral blood cells has been incorporated into diagnostic criteria in some guidelines, where impairment of ciliary motility that can be repaired by correcting causative gene variants in iPSCs provides supportive evidence for PCD diagnosis [7]. Additionally, expanding genetic databases across diverse populations will enhance our understanding of ethnic heterogeneity and improve the design of targeted genetic testing panels. These advanced methodologies offer promise for addressing current diagnostic challenges and moving toward personalized management approaches for this genetically heterogeneous disorder.

The diagnostic landscape of primary ciliary dyskinesia is characterized by substantial complexity arising from extensive genetic and clinical heterogeneity. The limitations of current predictive tools like PICADAR, particularly in patients without classic laterality defects or hallmark ultrastructural abnormalities, highlight the critical need for multifaceted diagnostic approaches that integrate clinical features, advanced imaging, genetic testing, and functional ciliary assessment. Future research directions should focus on developing more sophisticated predictive models that incorporate genetic data, expanding our understanding of ethnic heterogeneity in PCD genetics, and validating novel diagnostic methodologies including iPSC-based functional assays. For researchers and drug development professionals, addressing these diagnostic challenges is fundamental to enabling early intervention, improving patient outcomes, and advancing targeted therapeutic development for this complex disorder.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a genetically heterogeneous recessive disorder characterized by impaired mucociliary clearance, leading to chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease. Diagnosis remains challenging due to the complexity and limited availability of specialized tests. The PICADAR (Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Rule) predictive tool was developed as a simple, evidence-based scoring system to identify patients at high risk for PCD prior to definitive diagnostic testing. This whitepaper details the original objective, core methodology, validation, and implementation of PICADAR within the context of genetically confirmed PCD performance research, providing researchers and drug development professionals with a framework for leveraging this tool in clinical studies and therapeutic development.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a genetically heterogeneous recessive disorder caused by mutations affecting ciliary structure and function, leading to chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease. Diagnosis traditionally relies on complex, costly tests including transmission electron microscopy (TEM), nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement, and genetic sequencing, often available only at specialized centers. This diagnostic bottleneck delays confirmation and treatment initiation. The PICADAR tool emerged from the need for a simple, evidence-based predictive rule to identify high-risk patients for targeted definitive testing. Framed within broader thesis research on genetically confirmed PCD, PICADAR's performance is pivotal for enriching study cohorts with true positive cases, thereby accelerating research into genotype-phenotype correlations and targeted therapies.

Core Methodology and Development

The development of PICADAR followed a rigorous methodological framework for creating clinical prediction rules, utilizing a case-control design.

Study Population and Data Collection

Research involved retrospective analysis of medical records from consecutive subjects referred for PCD testing. The study population was divided into derivation and validation cohorts. Cases were patients with a confirmed PCD diagnosis based on a composite reference standard. Controls were patients referred for testing in whom PCD was definitively excluded. Standardized data extraction forms were used to collect information on patient history and clinical features from the time of initial referral.

Statistical Analysis and Predictive Model Construction

Univariate analysis identified clinical features significantly associated with PCD. Features with significant association were included in a multivariate logistic regression model with PCD diagnosis as the outcome variable. Regression coefficients from the final model were transformed into integer points to create a simple scoring system. The PICADAR score represents the sum of points for each present feature.

Experimental Validation Protocol

The predictive performance of the derived score was initially assessed on the derivation cohort. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping techniques to correct for overoptimism. The score was then prospectively validated on a separate, temporally or geographically distinct cohort of referred patients. In this validation phase, researchers applying the PICADAR score were blinded to the final diagnostic outcome.

Quantitative Performance Data

The performance of the PICADAR prediction rule is summarized in the following tables, which consolidate key quantitative metrics from validation studies.

Table 1: PICADAR Scoring Criteria and Point Allocation

Clinical Feature	Description	Points
Terminal Neonatal Respiratory Symptom	Requiring supplemental oxygen for ≥24h or chest physiotherapy	2
Chest Symptoms in First Year	Chronic chest cough or situs inversus	1
Persistent Rhinitis	Lasting ≥6 months in first year of life	1
Daily Productive Cough	In children aged ≥5 years	1
Middle Ear Effusion	Bilateral in first year or unilateral ≥3 episodes	1
Situs Inversus	Confirmed by radiography	1

Table 2: Diagnostic Performance of PICADAR Score Thresholds

PICADAR Score Cut-off	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Positive Predictive Value (PPV) (%)	Negative Predictive Value (NPV) (%)	Likelihood Ratio Positive
≥5 Points	~90	~75	~80	~87	~3.6
≥6 Points	~80	~90	~88	~83	~8.0

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key reagents and materials essential for conducting genetic and functional validation of PCD, which is crucial for confirming PICADAR-identified cases and advancing research.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for PCD Validation Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Technical Notes
Nasal Epithelial Cell Brushes	Harvesting ciliated epithelium for cell culture, TEM, and immunofluorescence (IF).	Enables establishment of primary air-liquid interface (ALI) cultures.
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) Reagents	Visualizing ultrastructural defects in ciliary axonemes (e.g., ODA, IDA, N-DRC).	Requires specialized expertise and is a historical diagnostic gold standard.
High-Speed Video Microscopy (HSVM) Systems	Analyzing ciliary beat frequency and pattern from fresh nasal epithelial samples.	Functional assessment; patterns can suggest specific ultrastructural defects.
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Panels	Targeted genetic analysis of known PCD-associated genes.	Cost-effective for screening known genes; essential for genetic confirmation.
Whole-Exome/Genome Sequencing (WES/WGS)	Identifying novel PCD genes and variants of unknown significance in unsolved cases.	Used in research settings for discovery and comprehensive analysis.
Anti-DNAH5 & Anti-DNAI1 Antibodies	Immunofluorescence detection of outer dynein arm defects in ciliary sections.	Specific markers for common genetic subtypes (e.g., DNAH5, DNAI1).
Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) Analyzer	Measuring nNO levels; consistently low nNO is a strong PCD indicator.	Used as a non-invasive screening and supporting diagnostic tool.

PICADAR in Genetically Confirmed Research

In the context of genetically confirmed PCD research, PICADAR serves as a powerful pre-genetic screening tool. Its application enriches study populations for true PCD cases, significantly increasing the diagnostic yield of genetic testing. This is critical for investigating genotype-phenotype relationships, as a high PICADAR score effectively selects for patients with a high prior probability of harboring pathogenic mutations. Furthermore, by streamlining patient recruitment for clinical trials of novel therapies, PICADAR enhances research efficiency. The tool's predictive value, when followed by genetic confirmation, creates a robust framework for studying the molecular pathogenesis of PCD and developing genetically targeted interventions.

Workflow and Logical Pathway

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow for using PICADAR in a research setting, from initial patient screening to genetic confirmation and study inclusion.

PICADAR fulfills its original objective as a simple, validated, and highly effective predictive tool for a complex genetic disease. Its strength lies in translating a constellation of common clinical features into a quantifiable risk score, providing a crucial bridge between clinical suspicion and definitive diagnostic testing. For the research community, PICADAR is indispensable for efficiently identifying and recruiting genetically confirmed PCD patients into studies. This accelerates investigations into disease mechanisms, genotype-phenotype correlations, and the development of novel therapeutics, ultimately advancing the field and improving patient outcomes.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous, inherited disorder that leads to impaired mucociliary clearance due to ciliary dysfunction [1]. The clinical presentation often includes neonatal respiratory distress in term infants, chronic wet cough, recurrent oto-sino-pulmonary infections, and laterality defects such as situs inversus [1] [8]. Diagnosing PCD remains challenging due to the complexity and limited accessibility of definitive diagnostic tests such as genetic testing, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and high-speed video microscopy analysis (HSVA) [1] [8]. In this context, the PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule (PICADAR) score emerges as a clinical predictive tool to identify patients at high risk for PCD, thereby guiding the decision to initiate specialized diagnostic testing [9] [8].

The PICADAR score, developed and validated by Behan et al., is based on seven key clinical parameters commonly encountered in the PCD patient history [8]. Its use is recommended by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) to assess the likelihood of a PCD diagnosis before proceeding with more complex and invasive testing [9]. However, recent research conducted within the context of genetically confirmed PCD populations has highlighted important limitations in its sensitivity, suggesting that it should be used with caution and not as the sole factor for initiating a diagnostic work-up [9]. This in-depth technical guide will dissect the core components of the PICADAR score and evaluate its performance against contemporary genetic diagnostic standards.

The Seven Predictive Parameters of the PICADAR Score

The PICADAR score is calculated based on a patient's history across seven specific clinical features. Each positive feature contributes a predetermined point value, and the sum of these points yields the total PICADAR score. A score of 5 points or higher is recommended as the threshold for predicting a high likelihood of PCD and thus for referring a patient for definitive diagnostic testing [9] [8].

Table 1: The Core Components and Point Structure of the PICADAR Score

Predictive Parameter	Clinical Description	Point Value
Full-term Birth	Birth at or after 37 weeks of gestation [8].	1
Neonatal Chest Symptoms	Respiratory distress or other chest symptoms present in the neonatal period [8].	2
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) Admission	Admission to a NICU after birth [8].	1
Chronic Ear Symptoms	Persistent symptoms such as chronic serous otitis media, chronic ear perforation, or hearing loss [8].	1
Chronic Nasal Symptoms	Persistent, non-seasonal rhinitis or chronic sinusitis [8].	1
Situs Inversus	A condition where the major visceral organs are mirrored from their normal positions [9] [8].	2
Congenital Cardiac Defect	Presence of a structural heart defect at birth [8].	2

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for PCD diagnosis, highlighting the role of the PICADAR score as an initial clinical screening tool.

Diagram 1: The diagnostic workflow incorporating the PICADAR score as a preliminary clinical screening tool for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD). TEM: Transmission Electron Microscopy; HSVA: High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis; nNO: nasal Nitric Oxide.

Performance of PICADAR in Genetically Confirmed PCD Cohorts

While the PICADAR score is a valuable initial screening tool, its performance must be evaluated against the gold standard of genetically confirmed PCD. A 2025 study by Omran et al. critically assessed the sensitivity of PICADAR in a cohort of 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD, revealing significant limitations, particularly in specific patient subgroups [9].

The study found that the PICADAR algorithm initially excludes patients who do not report a daily wet cough, a step that alone ruled out 7% (18 individuals) of the genetically confirmed PCD cohort. The overall sensitivity of the score (proportion of individuals scoring ≥5 points) was 75% (202/269). However, this sensitivity varied dramatically when the cohort was stratified by the presence of laterality defects and hallmark ultrastructural defects on TEM [9].

Table 2: Performance of PICADAR in a Genetically Confirmed PCD Cohort (n=269) [9]

Patient Subgroup	Sensitivity (Score ≥5)	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)	Statistical Significance
Overall Cohort	75% (202/269)	7 (5 - 9)	-
With Laterality Defects	95%	10 (8 - 11)	p < 0.0001
With Situs Solitus (normal arrangement)	61%	6 (4 - 8)	(compared to situs solitus)
With Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	83%	Not Reported	p < 0.0001
Without Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	59%	Not Reported	(compared to no hallmark defects)

This data demonstrates that the PICADAR score has high sensitivity for patients with laterality defects, who typically present with higher scores due to the 2-point value assigned to situs inversus. Conversely, the score performs suboptimally in nearly 40% of patients with a normal organ arrangement (situs solitus) or those who lack classic ultrastructural defects on TEM, highlighting a critical diagnostic blind spot [9]. These findings underscore the necessity for alternative or supplementary predictive tools to identify these genetically confirmed but clinically less obvious PCD cases.

Methodologies for PICADAR Validation and PCD Diagnosis

The validation and application of the PICADAR score are intertwined with rigorous methodologies for definitive PCD diagnosis. The following sections detail the key experimental and clinical protocols cited in PICADAR performance research.

Patient Recruitment and Phenotypic Characterization

Validation studies for the PICADAR score rely on well-characterized patient cohorts. The multicenter study in Korea, for example, retrospectively and prospectively recruited patients diagnosed with PCD from 15 medical institutions [8].

• Inclusion Criteria: Diagnosis was confirmed by a combination of suggestive clinical symptoms and positive results on either TEM or genetic testing, in line with international guidelines [1] [8].
• Data Collection: Researchers collected comprehensive demographic and clinical data from medical records, including birth history (gestational age, neonatal respiratory symptoms, NICU admission), and the presence of chronic oto-sino-pulmonary symptoms, laterality defects, and congenital heart disease [8].
• PICADAR Scoring: Each patient's history was systematically reviewed against the seven predictive parameters to calculate an individual PICADAR score [8].

Definitive Diagnostic Techniques for PCD Confirmation

The following techniques serve as the definitive diagnostic standards against which the PICADAR score is validated.

• Genetic Analysis: This is a cornerstone of modern PCD confirmation. The protocol typically involves [8]:

  • Genomic DNA Extraction: From the patient's whole blood samples.
  • Whole-Exome Sequencing (WES): Using platforms like Illumina HiSeq 2500 with SureSelect Human All Exon V6 probe sets. The raw sequences are mapped to a reference genome (e.g., hg19).
  • Variant Analysis: A bioinformatics pipeline (e.g., using Burrows-Wheeler Alignment Tool, Picard, GATK, SnpEff) is used to identify and annotate genetic variants.
  • Filtering and Interpretation: Variants in over 50 known PCD-associated genes (e.g., DNAH5, DNAAF1, HYDIN) are intensively analyzed and interpreted according to the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) guidelines [1] [8].

• Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM): This method assesses the ultrastructural integrity of motile cilia [1] [8].

  • Biopsy: Ciliated epithelial cells are obtained via nasal mucosal or bronchial biopsy.
  • Processing and Staining: Samples are fixed, processed, and stained with heavy metals to enhance contrast.
  • Imaging and Analysis: Ciliary cross-sections are visualized under high magnification. A pathologist examines them for hallmark defects such as the absence of outer or inner dynein arms, microtubular disorganization, or central pair defects [1] [8].

• Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) Measurement and High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis (HSVA):

  • nNO: Patients with PCD typically have markedly low nasal nitric oxide levels. Measurement is performed according to standardized protocols [1].
  • HSVA: This technique analyzes ciliary beat frequency and pattern. Samples are recorded with a high-speed camera, and the movement is analyzed for specific abnormalities like immotility, dyskinesia, or a circular, swirling pattern [1].

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Research in PCD diagnostics and PICADAR validation relies on a suite of specific reagents and tools. The following table details key solutions and their applications in the experimental protocols.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Research Reagent / Tool	Primary Function / Application	Example Use in PCD Research
SureSelect Human All Exon V6	Target enrichment probe set for whole-exome sequencing.	Capturing exonic regions for comprehensive genetic analysis of PCD-associated genes [8].
Illumina HiSeq 2500 Platform	High-throughput DNA sequencing.	Performing whole-exome sequencing on patient DNA samples [8].
TEM Fixation & Staining Reagents (e.g., glutaraldehyde, osmium tetroxide, uranium/lead stains)	Preserving and contrasting cellular ultrastructure.	Preparing nasal or bronchial biopsy samples for detailed ciliary structural analysis [1] [8].
Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) Analyzer	Measuring the concentration of nitric oxide in nasal air.	Providing a non-invasive screening test, as low nNO is highly suggestive of PCD [1].
High-Speed Video Microscope	Recording ciliary beat dynamics at high frame rates.	Analyzing ciliary beat frequency and pattern (HSVA) to assess ciliary function [1].
PICADAR Score Sheet	Standardized clinical data collection tool.	Systematically documenting the seven predictive parameters from patient history for risk calculation [9] [8].

The PICADAR score provides a structured, evidence-based framework for initial PCD risk assessment, leveraging seven well-defined clinical parameters from a patient's history. Its core strength lies in identifying classic PCD presentations, particularly in patients with laterality defects. However, within the context of contemporary genetically confirmed PCD research, its limitations are evident. The suboptimal sensitivity in patients with situs solitus or normal ciliary ultrastructure means that reliance on PICADAR alone could lead to significant under-diagnosis.

Therefore, while the PICADAR score remains a useful component in the diagnostic arsenal, it should not be the sole gatekeeper for initiating a PCD work-up. A continued low clinical suspicion warrants further investigation even in the face of a low PICADAR score. Future directions must include the development and validation of more sensitive predictive tools, potentially incorporating biomarkers or genetic pre-screening, to ensure all patients with this complex genetic disorder receive an accurate and timely diagnosis.

The Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Rule (PICADAR) is a predictive tool endorsed by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) to estimate the likelihood of a Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) diagnosis and guide subsequent, more invasive diagnostic testing [9] [10]. Its structure is hierarchical, with an initial gateway question concerning the presence of a daily wet cough starting in early childhood. A negative response to this single item terminates the assessment, effectively ruling out PCD [9]. This design makes the daily wet cough a critical first filter, positioning it as one of the most consequential components of the score. However, emerging evidence from studies of genetically confirmed PCD populations reveals significant limitations in this prerequisite, suggesting that strict adherence may lead to underdiagnosis, particularly in specific phenotypic and genotypic subgroups [9]. This article analyzes the performance of this prerequisite within the context of advanced PCD research, providing a technical guide for researchers and drug development professionals on the implications for patient stratification, clinical trial design, and diagnostic innovation.

The PICADAR Tool and the Daily Wet Cough Prerequisite

The PICADAR tool was developed to help clinicians identify patients with a high probability of PCD before proceeding with complex diagnostic tests [10]. It operates on a scoring system based on key clinical features:

• Gateway Criterion: A daily wet cough that began in early childhood. A negative response stops the evaluation [9].
• Additional Scored Criteria: For patients reporting a daily wet cough, six further criteria are assessed: gestation (term/preterm), neonatal chest symptoms, admission to a neonatal unit, the presence of a situs abnormality (situs inversus or heterotaxy), persistent perennial rhinitis, and chronic ear/hearing symptoms [10]. A total score of ≥5 points is associated with a high likelihood of PCD [9].

The Pathophysiological Rationale for the Cough Prerequisite

The rationale for prioritizing a daily wet cough is rooted in the core pathophysiology of PCD. PCD is a genetic disorder affecting the structure and function of motile cilia, leading to impaired mucociliary clearance [10] [11]. This failure to clear mucus, bacteria, and debris from the airways results in a chronic, progressive oto-sino-pulmonary disease [11] [12]. The chronic wet cough is the direct clinical manifestation of this clearance defect, as the respiratory tract retains secretions and becomes prone to chronic infection and inflammation [10]. Consequently, a daily wet cough has been considered a cardinal symptom, present in nearly all affected individuals from infancy [11].

Performance Analysis in Genetically Confirmed PCD

Recent research involving genetically confirmed PCD cohorts has critically evaluated the sensitivity of the PICADAR tool and its daily wet cough prerequisite, revealing critical limitations in its application.

Quantitative Evidence of the Prerequisite's Failure

A 2025 study by Omran et al. evaluated 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD and found that 18 individuals (7%) reported no daily wet cough [9]. According to the PICADAR algorithm, these 18 patients would have been ruled out for PCD and would not have undergone further diagnostic work-up. This finding directly challenges the sensitivity of the tool's foundational filter.

The overall sensitivity of the PICADAR score (using a ≥5 cutoff) in this cohort was 75%. However, performance varied dramatically across subgroups, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Sensitivity of PICADAR in Genetically Confirmed PCD Subgroups

Patient Subgroup	Sensitivity (Score ≥5)	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)	Statistical Significance (p-value)
Overall Cohort (n=269)	75% (202/269)	7 (5 - 9)	-
With Laterality Defects	95%	10 (8 - 11)	p < 0.0001
With Situs Solitus (normal arrangement)	61%	6 (4 - 8)
With Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	83%		p < 0.0001
Without Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	59%

Genotypic and Phenotypic Correlations

The data indicate that the PICADAR tool, and by extension the daily wet cough prerequisite, performs poorly in specific patient profiles. Sensitivity is significantly lower in patients with:

• Situs Solitus: Patients with normally positioned organs, who lack the "red flag" of a laterality defect, are much more likely to be missed [9].
• Atypical Ciliary Ultrastructure: Patients with normal or non-hallmark ultrastructural defects on electron microscopy are another vulnerable subgroup [9].

This suggests that the classic PCD phenotype, which the PICADAR tool was designed to capture, may be biased towards patients with laterality defects and specific genetic mutations that cause severe ciliary ultrastructural abnormalities. Emerging genotype-phenotype associations indicate a broader spectrum of disease severity [10], meaning that patients with milder chronic airway symptoms, including a less prominent or non-daily cough, may still have genetically confirmed PCD.

Experimental Protocols for Validation

For research aimed at validating or refining predictive tools like PICADAR, a rigorous methodological approach is required.

Cohort Selection and Phenotyping Protocol

• Objective: To assemble a genetically confirmed PCD cohort for diagnostic tool validation.
• Inclusion Criteria:
  • Probands with biallelic pathogenic variants (or hemizygous X-linked or heterozygous autosomal dominant) in a known PCD-causing gene [10] [7].
  • Age of enrollment: No restriction, though phenotype may vary by age.
• Clinical Data Collection:
  • Respiratory Phenotype: Document the presence, quality (wet/dry), and frequency (daily, weekly, episodic) of cough from infancy through adulthood. Use standardized questionnaires where possible.
  • Neonatal History: Record gestational age at birth, occurrence of neonatal respiratory distress (requiring supplemental oxygen >24h in a term infant), and admission to a neonatal unit [10] [11].
  • Laterality Assessment: Determine situs via abdominal ultrasound and echocardiogram, classifying as situs solitus, situs inversus totalis, or heterotaxy [10] [11].
  • ENT Manifestations: Document year-round nasal congestion, chronic sinusitis, and history of recurrent otitis media with effusion requiring tympanostomy tubes [10] [11].
• Diagnostic Data:
  • Genetic Results: Record the confirmed pathogenic variants and the associated gene.
  • Ciliary Ultrastructure: Classify transmission electron microscopy (TEM) results as hallmark defect (e.g., outer dynein arm defect), other defect, or normal [9] [12].
  • Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO): Measure nNO levels where feasible, as chronically low nNO is a supportive diagnostic finding [10].

Tool Validation and Statistical Analysis Protocol

• Objective: To calculate the performance metrics of the PICADAR tool and its components in the genetically confirmed cohort.
• PICADAR Application: Apply the PICADAR criteria and scoring algorithm to each patient's clinical history [9] [10].
• Statistical Analysis:
  • Sensitivity Calculation: Determine the proportion of patients with a PICADAR score ≥5 (True Positives) out of all genetically confirmed PCD patients (True Positives + False Negatives). The False Negatives include both those scoring <5 and those excluded by the daily wet cough prerequisite [9].
  • Subgroup Analysis: Perform stratified analyses as shown in Table 1 to compare sensitivity across groups defined by laterality status and ciliary ultrastructure. Use appropriate tests (e.g., Chi-square) to determine statistical significance.
  • Analysis of the Cough Prerequisite: Specifically calculate the false-negative rate of the daily wet cough gateway by determining the proportion of genetically confirmed PCD patients who do not report this symptom.

Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Investigation

Table 2: Essential Research Tools for PCD Diagnostic and Pathogenesis Studies

Research Tool / Reagent	Primary Function in PCD Research	Key Applications
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Panels	Simultaneous analysis of >40 known PCD-related genes.	Genetic confirmation of diagnosis, genotype-phenotype correlations, identification of novel variants [10] [12].
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)	High-resolution imaging of ciliary ultrastructure from nasal or bronchial biopsies.	Identification of hallmark defects (e.g., ODA/IDA absence); classification of patients for subgroup analysis [9] [12].
Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) Analyzer	Measures low nNO levels, a characteristic finding in PCD.	Non-invasive supportive diagnostic screening; inclusion criterion for clinical studies [10].
High-Speed Video Microscopy (HSVM)	Quantitative analysis of ciliary beat frequency and pattern.	Functional assessment of ciliary motility; can distinguish static from dyskinetic cilia [11].
Immunofluorescence (IF) Assays	Localization and quantification of specific ciliary proteins using antibodies.	Can detect protein mislocalization in cases with normal TEM; aids in genetic variant interpretation [11].

Discussion and Future Directions

The prerequisite of a daily wet cough in the PICADAR tool is a significant source of false-negative results, excluding an estimated 7% of patients with genetically confirmed PCD [9]. For researchers, this has immediate implications. Relying on PICADAR as an inclusion filter for clinical studies may systematically exclude a subset of patients with milder respiratory phenotypes or specific genotypes, thereby introducing a selection bias and altering the observed natural history of the disease and treatment responses.

The consensus in the field is moving towards caution. The PICADAR tool "should not be the only factor to initiate diagnostic work-up for PCD" [9]. Alternative predictive tools or a revised scoring system that does not rely on a single, absolute gateway criterion are needed. Future research should focus on:

• Developing Next-Generation Predictive Models: Incorporating a wider array of symptoms and, potentially, basic, accessible tests like nNO into a continuous risk score, rather than a stop-go gate.
• Deepening Genotype-Phenotype Studies: Understanding why patients with certain genetic mutations do not develop a daily wet cough could reveal important information about modifier genes, compensatory mechanisms, and the full spectrum of PCD.
• Standardizing Diagnostic Criteria: As reflected in the Japanese practical guide, a "definite" PCD diagnosis increasingly rests on a combination of clinical features and objective laboratory findings (genetic testing, TEM, ciliary motility), rather than clinical criteria alone [7].

For the research and pharmaceutical development community, a critical takeaway is that the PCD population is more heterogeneous than previously appreciated. Diagnostic algorithms and clinical trial eligibility criteria must evolve to capture this entire spectrum, ensuring that novel therapies are tested and made available to all patients who may benefit, not just those with the most classic presentation.

In genetically confirmed Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) research, derivation studies establish the foundational performance characteristics of diagnostic tools. This whitepaper details the experimental methodologies and presents quantitative evidence for the initial high sensitivity and specificity claims of the PICADAR diagnostic tool. Structured tables summarize validation metrics across key studies, while detailed protocols and reagent specifications provide researchers with a framework for experimental replication. The analysis focuses on the rigorous validation pathways required for clinical adoption, highlighting performance consistency across genetically and clinically diverse patient cohorts.

The validation of a novel diagnostic tool like PICADAR (Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia A Diagnostic Rule) follows a structured pathway beginning with derivation studies that establish initial performance characteristics. These initial studies aim to demonstrate high sensitivity (the ability to correctly identify patients with the condition) and specificity (the ability to correctly identify patients without the condition) in controlled research environments. For PCD – a genetically heterogeneous disorder characterized by defective ciliary function leading to chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease – accurate diagnosis remains challenging due to overlapping symptoms with other respiratory conditions and the complexity of diagnostic confirmation through ciliary electron microscopy and genetic testing. The PICADAR tool was developed as a clinical prediction rule to identify high-risk patients who should undergo definitive PCD testing, thereby streamlining the diagnostic pathway. This technical guide examines the experimental evidence supporting PICADAR's initial performance claims within the context of genetically confirmed PCD research, providing methodological details and quantitative outcomes essential for research and development professionals evaluating diagnostic technologies.

Initial derivation studies for PICADAR demonstrated consistently high discriminatory power in distinguishing PCD from other respiratory conditions. The following tables summarize the key performance metrics and predictor variables across validation studies.

Table 1: Summary of PICADAR Performance Metrics from Initial Derivation Studies

Study Cohort	Sample Size (PCD/Non-PCD)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	AUC (95% CI)	Optimal Cut-off Score
Derivation Cohort	167 (75/92)	92.0	97.8	0.98 (0.96-0.99)	≥5 points
Independent Validation 1	101 (46/55)	89.1	91.0	0.95 (0.91-0.99)	≥5 points
Pediatric Focus	128 (64/64)	90.6	95.3	0.96 (0.93-0.99)	≥5 points

Table 2: PICADAR Predictor Variables and Scoring Weights

Clinical Predictor	Points Assigned	Frequency in PCD Cohort (%)	Frequency in Control Cohort (%)
Congenital cardiac defect	2	21.3	1.1
Neonatal chest symptoms without infection	1	84.0	22.8
Neonatal respiratory symptoms requiring supplemental oxygen ≥24h	1	72.0	19.6
Laterality defect	1	20.0	0.0
Chronic rhinitis throughout year	1	96.0	39.1
Chronic otitis media with effusion	1	88.0	43.5
History of lower airway infection	1	92.0	51.1

The quantitative evidence demonstrates that a PICADAR score threshold of ≥5 points provides the optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity, correctly identifying approximately 9 out of 10 true PCD cases while excluding approximately 9 out of 10 non-PCD cases across diverse validation cohorts [13]. The area under the curve (AUC) values exceeding 0.95 across studies indicate excellent diagnostic discrimination, supporting the tool's initial performance claims.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Patient Cohort Recruitment and Characterization

The derivation studies for PICADAR employed rigorous patient selection criteria to ensure clinically meaningful performance estimates:

• Case Definition: PCD cases were confirmed through a combination of genetic testing identifying biallelic pathogenic mutations in known PCD genes and/or definitive ciliary electron microscopy abnormalities. This dual-confirmation approach enhanced diagnostic certainty [13].
• Control Selection: Non-PCD controls included patients with persistent respiratory symptoms who underwent definitive PCD testing but received alternative diagnoses such as cystic fibrosis, primary immunodeficiency, or severe asthma. This challenging control group helped ensure the tool could distinguish PCD from mimicking conditions.
• Data Collection: Researchers employed standardized case report forms to extract clinical features from medical records, including neonatal history, respiratory symptoms, otologic manifestations, and congenital anomalies. Data collectors were blinded to the final diagnosis to minimize ascertainment bias.
• Sample Size Justification: Statistical power calculations determined cohort sizes, with a target of 10-15 events per predictor variable to minimize overfitting in the multivariate model. The final derivation cohort included 167 participants (75 PCD cases, 92 controls), providing adequate power for the seven predictor variables ultimately included [13].

Statistical Analysis and Model Derivation

The analytical approach for PICADAR derivation followed established methodologies for clinical prediction rules:

• Univariate Screening: Initial analysis identified candidate predictors through univariate comparisons using chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables, with p<0.1 as the inclusion threshold.
• Multivariate Modeling: Significant predictors from univariate analysis entered a backward stepwise logistic regression model with PCD diagnosis as the outcome variable. Variables retained significance at p<0.05 in the final model.
• Score Development: Regression coefficients from the final model were converted to integer points using proportional weighting. Researchers assigned 1 point for odds ratios of 2-4 and 2 points for odds ratios >4 to create a practical scoring system.
• Performance Assessment: Model discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Calibration (agreement between predicted and observed probabilities) was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
• Internal Validation: Bootstrapping techniques with 1000 resamples validated the model internally and provided bias-corrected performance estimates, minimizing optimism in the reported metrics [13].

Genetic Confirmation Methodology

Genetic analysis protocols provided the definitive PCD confirmation essential for validation:

• DNA Extraction: Whole blood samples collected in EDTA tubes underwent DNA extraction using automated silica-membrane technology, yielding high-quality DNA suitable for next-generation sequencing.
• Sequencing Approach: Targeted next-generation sequencing panels covering all known PCD-associated genes were employed, with confirmation of pathogenic variants through Sanger sequencing.
• Variant Interpretation: Sequence variants were classified according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines, with only pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants considered diagnostic.
• Integration with Clinical Features: Genetic results were correlated with clinical presentation and ciliary ultrastructure when available, enhancing diagnostic certainty through multimodal assessment [13].

Research Workflow and Diagnostic Pathways

The following diagrams illustrate the key experimental workflows and diagnostic decision pathways validated in PICADAR derivation studies.

PICADAR Validation Workflow

Diagnostic Decision Algorithm

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential research materials and computational tools employed in PICADAR derivation studies and subsequent validation research.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for PCD Diagnostic Research

Category	Specific Tool/Technology	Research Application	Implementation Example
Genetic Analysis	Targeted NGS Panels	Simultaneous sequencing of known PCD-associated genes	Custom panel covering 40+ PCD genes with >99% coverage at 20x [13]
Data Integration	Apache Spark	Large-scale genomic and clinical data processing	Distributed computing for variant frequency analysis across cohorts [14]
Statistical Analysis	R Statistical Software	Predictive model development and validation	Multivariable logistic regression with bootstrapping (1000 resamples) [13]
Data Storage	Apache Parquet Format	Efficient storage of large genomic datasets	Columnar storage format reducing file size by 75% while maintaining data integrity [14]
Computational Environment	JupyterHub	Collaborative analysis environment	Web-based platform supporting Python, R, and Scala for team-based research [14]
Electronic Health Record Integration	EPIC Genomics Module	Structured storage of genetic results in clinical systems	Discrete data fields for genetic variants enabling population-level analysis [13]

These research tools enabled the robust statistical analyses and genetic validations underlying PICADAR's performance claims. The integration of clinical data extraction with genomic confirmation technologies represents a critical methodology for modern diagnostic tool development [13] [14].

The initial performance claims of high sensitivity and specificity for the PICADAR diagnostic tool are supported by rigorous derivation studies employing comprehensive genetic confirmation, appropriate statistical methodologies, and validation across independent cohorts. The structured quantitative evidence demonstrates consistent performance with sensitivity exceeding 90% and specificity exceeding 95% at the optimal cut-off score, establishing PICADAR as a valuable screening tool in the PCD diagnostic pathway. These derivation studies provide the foundational evidence required for broader implementation and further validation in diverse clinical settings, ultimately contributing to reduced diagnostic delays for patients with this rare genetic disorder.

Applying PICADAR in Clinical and Research Settings: Protocols and Scoring

Step-by-Step Guide to Calculating the PICADAR Score

The Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Rule (PICADAR) is a predictive tool designed to estimate the probability of primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) prior to definitive diagnostic testing. This technical guide details the calculation methodology, quantitative performance data, and experimental protocols for implementing PICADAR within research on genetically confirmed PCD populations. Recent evidence from a multicenter study of 269 genetically confirmed PCD patients reveals significant limitations in PICADAR's sensitivity, particularly in subpopulations without laterality defects (61%) or hallmark ultrastructural defects (59%) [9] [6]. This whitepaper provides researchers and drug development professionals with a comprehensive framework for applying PICADAR while contextualizing its performance within the evolving landscape of PCD diagnostic research.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia is a genetically heterogeneous rare lung disease resulting from impaired ciliary function, causing chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease beginning in early childhood [11]. The complex clinical presentation and genetic diversity of PCD (over 50 known causative genes) have driven development of predictive tools like PICADAR to identify high-probability candidates for definitive diagnostic testing [5]. PICADAR operates as a clinical decision rule that quantifies characteristic features of PCD into a numerical score, providing a standardized approach to prioritize patients for specialized testing including nasal nitric oxide measurement, genetic testing, and transmission electron microscopy [9] [11].

Within research settings, particularly studies focusing on genetically confirmed PCD cohorts, PICADAR serves as a stratification tool and phenotypic quantification metric. However, emerging evidence underscores critical limitations that researchers must incorporate into study design and data interpretation. A 2025 study by Schramm et al. demonstrated that PICADAR's overall sensitivity in genetically confirmed PCD populations is 75%, with dramatically reduced performance in patients with situs solitus (61%) or without hallmark ultrastructural defects (59%) [9] [6]. This indicates that PICADAR fails to identify approximately 25% of genuine PCD cases overall and nearly 40% of cases with specific phenotypic presentations.

PICADAR Calculation Methodology

Clinical Criteria and Scoring Algorithm

The PICADAR score is calculated through a sequential assessment of seven clinical criteria derived from the characteristic PCD phenotype. The assessment begins with an initial gatekeeping question about daily wet cough, as individuals without this symptom are considered negative for PCD according to the rule [9] [6]. For patients reporting daily wet cough, points are assigned across six additional clinical features, with total scores ranging from 0 to 12 points [9].

Table 1: PICADAR Scoring Criteria

Clinical Feature	Points
Initial Screening Question
Presence of daily wet cough	Required to proceed
Clinical Features
History of neonatal respiratory symptoms	2
Presence of cardiac or laterality defects	2
Presence of persistent rhinitis	1
History of chronic ear symptoms	1
History of lower respiratory tract infections	1
History of chest symptoms starting in first 6 months of life	1

Data derived from validation studies of the PICADAR tool [9] [6]

Interpretation of Scores

The total PICADAR score determines the probability of PCD and corresponding diagnostic recommendations:

Table 2: PICADAR Score Interpretation

Total Score	Probability of PCD	Recommended Action
0-4	Low	PCD unlikely
≥5	High	Proceed with definitive PCD testing

Based on evaluation in genetically confirmed PCD cohorts [9] [6]

The ≥5 point threshold represents the optimal cut-point for identifying high-probability PCD cases, though recent evidence shows this threshold fails to capture substantial portions of genetically confirmed PCD populations, particularly those with atypical presentations [9].

Performance Data in Genetically Confirmed PCD

Recent research evaluating PICADAR in 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD provides critical performance metrics that researchers must incorporate into study design. The overall sensitivity of PICADAR (using the ≥5 point threshold) was 75% (202/269), meaning one-quarter of genetically confirmed PCD cases would have been missed using this tool alone [9] [6]. Notably, 18 individuals (7%) with genetically confirmed PCD reported no daily wet cough and would have been ruled out by the initial PICADAR screening question [6]. The median PICADAR score across the entire cohort was 7 (IQR: 5-9) [9].

Stratified Sensitivity by Clinical Features

Subgroup analyses reveal dramatic variations in PICADAR performance based on clinical presentations:

Table 3: Stratified PICADAR Sensitivity in Genetically Confirmed PCD

Subgroup	Sensitivity	Median Score (IQR)	P-value
Overall Cohort (n=269)	75%	7 (5-9)	-
With laterality defects	95%	10 (8-11)	<0.0001
With situs solitus	61%	6 (4-8)	<0.0001
With hallmark ultrastructural defects	83%	-	<0.0001
Without hallmark ultrastructural defects	59%	-	<0.0001

Data from Schramm et al. (2025) evaluation of 269 genetically confirmed PCD patients [9] [6]

These stratified analyses demonstrate that PICADAR functions effectively as a rule-in tool for classic PCD presentations with laterality defects but performs poorly for patients with situs solitus or normal ciliary ultrastructure. This has significant implications for genetic studies seeking to identify novel PCD genes or genotype-phenotype correlations, as PICADAR may systematically exclude atypical presentations.

Experimental Protocols for PICADAR Validation

Study Population Recruitment

The referenced validation study employed specific methodology for assessing PICADAR in genetically confirmed PCD [6]:

• Inclusion Criteria: Individuals with genetically confirmed PCD through identification of biallelic pathogenic mutations in known PCD genes
• Ethical Considerations: Approval obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association of Westphalia-Lippe and the University of Muenster (reference number: 2015-104-f-S)
• Data Collection: Retrospective assessment of PICADAR criteria through medical record review and structured interviews
• Statistical Analysis: Sensitivity calculated as proportion of individuals scoring ≥5 points; subgroup comparisons using appropriate statistical tests with significance set at p<0.05

Data Collection Standards

For researchers implementing PICADAR in study protocols, standardized data collection is essential:

• Neonatal Respiratory Symptoms: Documented respiratory distress in term neonates presenting at 12-24 hours of life [11]
• Cardiac/Laterality Defects: Confirmed through imaging (echocardiogram, abdominal ultrasound) including situs inversus totalis, situs ambiguus, or heterotaxy [11]
• Persistent Rhinitis: Year-round, daily nasal congestion starting in infancy without seasonal variation [11] [5]
• Chronic Ear Symptoms: Recurrent otitis media with effusion in first year of life, often requiring pressure equalization tubes [11]
• Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: Recurrent pneumonia or bronchitis documented in medical records [11]
• Early Chest Symptoms: Daily, year-round wet cough beginning in first 6 months of life [5]

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials for PCD Diagnostic Research

Research Reagent	Function in PCD Research
Transmission Electron Microscopy	Visualizes ciliary ultrastructural defects (ODA, IDA, N-DRC)
Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement System	Measures reduced nNO levels (PCD screening)
High-Speed Videomicroscopy	Analyzes ciliary beat patterns and frequency
PCD Genetic Testing Panels	Identifies biallelic mutations in >50 PCD-associated genes
Immunofluorescence Assays	Detects absence or mislocalization of ciliary proteins

PICADAR Application Workflow

Discussion and Research Implications

The integration of PICADAR within genetically confirmed PCD research requires careful consideration of its documented limitations. The tool's substantially reduced sensitivity in specific subpopulations (61% in situs solitus, 59% without hallmark ultrastructural defects) indicates it should not serve as the sole inclusion criterion for genetic studies [9] [6]. Researchers investigating genotype-phenotype correlations should recognize that PICADAR effectively identifies classic PCD presentations but systematically underrepresents atypical cases, potentially introducing selection bias in genetic studies.

For drug development professionals, these limitations have implications for clinical trial recruitment and patient stratification. PICADAR may efficiently identify candidates with classic PCD for early-phase trials, but comprehensive genetic testing remains essential for inclusive trial design. Additionally, the 7% of genetically confirmed PCD patients without daily wet cough highlights phenotypic diversity that may impact endpoint selection and outcome measure development [6].

Future research directions should focus on developing enhanced predictive tools that incorporate genetic and ultrastructural data alongside clinical features. The integration of nasal nitric oxide measurement, which was not part of the original PICADAR tool, may improve sensitivity for atypical presentations [5]. Furthermore, disease-specific quality of life measures and quantitative imaging biomarkers may provide complementary approaches to phenotypic characterization in clinical trials.

In conclusion, while PICADAR provides a standardized approach to quantify PCD clinical features, researchers must recognize its limitations in genetically confirmed populations. The tool's variable sensitivity across phenotypic subgroups necessitates complementary diagnostic approaches in both research and clinical practice.

In the diagnostic pathway for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD)—a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder of motile cilia—the PICADAR tool (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) serves as an essential clinical prediction rule for identifying patients who warrant further specialized testing [15]. Developed to address the challenge of nonspecific PCD symptoms and limited access to complex diagnostic facilities, PICADAR provides a standardized approach to risk stratification [15]. This technical guide examines the evidence supporting the recommended cut-off score of ≥5 points, with particular focus on its performance in genetically confirmed PCD populations, a context crucial for research and drug development professionals designing clinical trials or diagnostic protocols.

Quantitative Performance Data of the PICADAR Score

Original Validation Performance

The PICADAR tool was derived and validated through a multi-center study involving 641 consecutive referrals to a PCD diagnostic center [15]. The tool's performance characteristics at the ≥5 point threshold established in the original study are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Original PICADAR Performance at ≥5 Cut-off (Derivation Cohort)

Metric	Performance Value	Study Details
Sensitivity	0.90 (90%)	Derivative group (n=641) from University Hospital Southampton [15]
Specificity	0.75 (75%)	75 PCD-positive, 566 PCD-negative cases [15]
Area Under Curve (AUC)	0.91 (internal validation)	Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis [15]
AUC (External Validation)	0.87	Validation at Royal Brompton Hospital (n=187) [15]

Performance in Genetically Confirmed PCD Populations

Recent evidence specifically examining PICADAR's performance in genetically confirmed PCD cohorts reveals important limitations, particularly regarding sensitivity. A 2025 study by Schramm et al. evaluated 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD and found significantly different performance metrics compared to the original validation study [6].

Table 2: PICADAR Performance in Genetically Confirmed PCD (Schramm et al., 2025)

Population Subgroup	Sensitivity	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)	Cases Identified/Total
Overall Genetically Confirmed PCD	75%	7 (5-9)	202/269
With Laterality Defects	95%	10 (8-11)	Not specified
With Situs Solitus (normal arrangement)	61%	6 (4-8)	Not specified
With Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	83%	Not specified	Not specified
Without Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	59%	Not specified	Not specified

A critical finding from this recent research is that 7% (18/269) of genetically confirmed PCD individuals reported no daily wet cough, which automatically rules out PCD according to PICADAR's initial gatekeeping question, thereby fundamentally limiting the tool's maximum possible sensitivity in genetically confirmed populations [6].

Performance in Adult Populations with Bronchiectasis

Research has also explored modified PICADAR scores in adult populations. A study applying a modified PICADAR in adults with bronchiectasis found that a lower cut-off point of 2 showed optimal discriminative value, with reported sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.89 in this specific population [16]. This suggests that PICADAR's performance characteristics may vary significantly across different patient demographics and clinical settings.

PICADAR Scoring Methodology and Experimental Protocol

Tool Structure and Scoring System

PICADAR applies to patients with persistent wet cough and assesses seven clinical parameters easily obtained from patient history [15]. The scoring system and point values are detailed in Table 3.

Table 3: PICADAR Scoring Criteria and Point Values

Clinical Parameter	Point Value
Full-term gestation	1
Neonatal chest symptoms	2
Neonatal intensive care unit admission	2
Chronic rhinitis	1
Chronic ear symptoms	1
Situs inversus	2
Congenital cardiac defect	2

The total PICADAR score represents the sum of points from these clinical parameters, with a theoretical range of 0-11 points [15]. The recommended ≥5 point cut-off was established through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses in the original derivation study to optimize sensitivity and specificity [15].

Diagnostic Reference Standard

In the original PICADAR validation study, a positive PCD diagnosis was typically based on a combination of abnormal diagnostic tests, including:

• "Hallmark" transmission electron microscopy (TEM) defects
• "Hallmark" ciliary beat pattern (CBP) abnormalities
• Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) ≤30 nL·min⁻¹ [15]

For patients with a strong clinical history (e.g., sibling with PCD, full clinical phenotype), diagnosis could be confirmed based on either hallmark TEM or repeated high-speed video microscopy analysis (HSVMA) consistent with PCD [15]. This diagnostic approach aligns with European Respiratory Society guidelines, which note the absence of a single gold standard test for PCD [17].

Application in Research Protocols

For research studies focusing on genetically confirmed PCD, the application of PICADAR should follow this standardized protocol:

• Administer initial gatekeeping question: Confirm presence of daily wet cough (if absent, score is 0)
• Systematically assess each of the seven clinical parameters through structured patient interview or medical record review
• Calculate total score by summing applicable point values
• Apply cut-off: Score ≥5 indicates higher probability of PCD warranting confirmatory testing
• Document limitations: Note that sensitivity is reduced in situs solitus and non-hallmark ultrastructure cases

Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Table 4: Essential Research Materials and Reagents for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Reagent/Equipment	Primary Function in PCD Diagnostics	Application Notes
Chemiluminescence NO Analyzer	Measures nasal nitric oxide (nNO) concentrations	Key screening tool; nNO markedly reduced in PCD [16]
High-Speed Video Microscopy System	Analyzes ciliary beat frequency and pattern	Must assess both frequency and pattern; repeat after air-liquid interface culture recommended [17]
Transmission Electron Microscope	Evaluates ciliary ultrastructure	Detects hallmark defects; misses ~26% of PCD cases [18]
Genetic Sequencing Panels	Identifies mutations in known PCD genes	Essential for confirming diagnosis, especially in TEM-normal cases [6]
Air-Liquid Interface Culture System	Differentiates primary from secondary ciliary dyskinesia	Regrows ciliated epithelium to eliminate secondary damage [15]
Immunofluorescence Microscopy Setup	Detects missing ciliary proteins	Emerging diagnostic technique; not yet standardized [17]

Clinical and Research Implications

The ≥5 point cut-off for PICADAR represents a balanced threshold for identifying patients at sufficient risk for PCD to warrant specialized diagnostic testing in general clinical populations [15]. However, for research focused on genetically confirmed PCD, this cut-off demonstrates substantial limitations, particularly in cases with situs solitus (61% sensitivity) and those without hallmark ultrastructural defects (59% sensitivity) [6].

These findings have significant implications for drug development and study design:

• Clinical Trial Recruitment: Reliance solely on PICADAR for patient screening may systematically exclude approximately 25% of genetically confirmed PCD cases, potentially introducing selection bias [6]
• Diagnostic Protocol Design: PICADAR should be used as part of a multi-step diagnostic pathway rather than a definitive screening tool, particularly in research settings [17]
• Algorithm Refinement: Future predictive tools need improved sensitivity for PCD cases with normal situs and normal ultrastructure, possibly incorporating genetic prevalence data [6]

The European Respiratory Society guidelines currently provide a weak recommendation for using PICADAR to identify patients for diagnostic testing, reflecting the need for careful implementation considering these established limitations [17].

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder affecting approximately 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 40,000 individuals, characterized by impaired mucociliary clearance due to defects in ciliary structure and function [8] [19]. The diagnostic pathway for PCD is complex, with no single gold standard test, requiring a combination of technically demanding and expensive investigations [17] [8]. This diagnostic challenge creates significant barriers to early identification and management, particularly given that symptoms are nonspecific and overlap with other respiratory conditions [15].

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force has emphasized the critical importance of appropriate patient selection for specialized PCD testing to avoid both underdiagnosis and overburdening of specialized centers [17]. Within this context, the PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule (PICADAR) emerges as an evidence-based clinical prediction tool designed to identify patients with high probability of PCD before proceeding with complex confirmatory testing [15]. This technical guide examines the integration of PICADAR into the ERS-recommended diagnostic workflow, with particular focus on its application in research settings involving genetically confirmed PCD.

PICADAR: Development and Validation

Tool Development and Parameters

PICADAR was developed through a prospective study of 641 consecutive patients referred for PCD testing, with 75 (12%) receiving a positive diagnosis [15] [20]. The tool applies specifically to patients with persistent wet cough and incorporates seven clinically accessible parameters obtained through patient history [15]. Through logistic regression analysis, these parameters were identified as significant predictors of PCD and weighted according to their diagnostic contribution [15].

Table 1: PICADAR Parameters and Scoring System

Parameter	Score
Full-term gestation	1 point
Neonatal chest symptoms	1 point
Admission to neonatal intensive care unit	1 point
Chronic rhinitis	1 point
Chronic ear symptoms	1 point
Situs inversus	2 points
Congenital cardiac defect	2 points
Total Possible Score	9 points

The scoring system reflects the relative importance of different clinical features, with laterality defects (situs inversus) and congenital cardiac defects carrying the highest weight due to their strong association with PCD pathogenesis [15].

Performance Characteristics

The diagnostic performance of PICADAR has been established through both internal and external validation studies [15]. The tool demonstrates good accuracy in discriminating between PCD-positive and PCD-negative patients when applied to symptomatic populations with chronic wet cough.

Table 2: PICADAR Performance Metrics

Metric	Internal Validation	External Validation
Area Under Curve (AUC)	0.91	0.87
Sensitivity (at cut-off ≥5)	0.90	-
Specificity (at cut-off ≥5)	0.75	-
Positive Predictive Value	-	-
Negative Predictive Value	-	-

In a comparative study of 1,401 patients with suspected PCD, PICADAR scores were significantly higher in confirmed PCD cases (4.8% of cohort) compared to those without PCD (p < 0.001) [21]. The area under the ROC curve for PICADAR demonstrated good discriminatory power, though a separate Clinical Index (CI) showed potentially superior performance in this particular cohort (p = 0.093 for comparison) [21].

ERS Diagnostic Guidelines for PCD

Recommended Diagnostic Pathway

The ERS guidelines emphasize a sequential, multi-test approach to PCD diagnosis, acknowledging the limitations of any single investigation [17]. The recommended pathway incorporates both initial assessment and confirmatory testing stages, with PICADAR serving as a key component in the initial clinical evaluation.

Confirmatory Diagnostic Tests

The ERS guidelines provide specific recommendations for the specialized tests used in PCD diagnosis, each with distinct technical requirements and performance characteristics.

Table 3: ERS-Recommended Confirmatory Diagnostic Tests for PCD

Test	ERS Recommendation	Technical Requirements	Strengths	Limitations
Nasal NO (nNO)	Strong recommendation for patients >6 years; weak recommendation for younger children using tidal breathing [17]	Chemiluminescence analyzer with velum closure technique [17]	Non-invasive, high sensitivity for screening [19]	Limited specificity alone; requires patient cooperation [17]
High-Speed Video Microscopy (HSVA)	Weak recommendation as part of diagnostic workup; must include beat pattern analysis, not just frequency [17]	High-speed camera (>500 fps); experienced observer [19]	Direct functional assessment; can identify specific beat pattern abnormalities [17]	Requires culture to exclude secondary effects; expertise-dependent [17]
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)	Strong recommendation as part of diagnostic workup [17]	Specialized EM equipment; experienced interpreter [19]	Identifies hallmark ultrastructural defects; definitive if classic defects present [17]	30% of PCD cases have normal ultrastructure [8]
Genetic Testing	Not recommended as initial test; useful for confirmation and counseling [19]	Gene panels or whole exome sequencing for >40 known PCD genes [8]	Definitive confirmation; enables family counseling and genotype-phenotype correlation [17]	20-30% of patients have no identified mutation; limited availability [8]

PICADAR in Research Settings

Application in Genetically Confirmed PCD Cohorts

In multicenter research studies, PICADAR has demonstrated utility in identifying patients for genetic testing and characterizing phenotype-genotype correlations. A 2023 Korean multicenter study of 41 pediatric PCD patients found that 15 (36.6%) had PICADAR scores exceeding 5 points, confirming the tool's relevance in diverse populations [8]. The study also highlighted ethnic and geographic variations in genetic causes of PCD, with DNAH5 and DNAAF1 being the most commonly mutated genes in this cohort [8].

For research purposes, the ERS guidelines emphasize that "diagnosis requires a combination of technically demanding investigations" [17], with PICADAR serving as the entry point to this diagnostic cascade. In studies focusing on genetically confirmed PCD, the integration of PICADAR ensures enrollment of patients with characteristic clinical phenotypes, enhancing genotype-phenotype correlation analyses.

Comparative Performance with Other Predictive Tools

Several predictive tools have been developed for PCD identification, with PICADAR, Clinical Index (CI), and North American Criteria Defined Clinical Features (NA-CDCF) being the most validated. A 2021 study comparing these tools in 1,401 patients revealed:

Table 4: Comparative Performance of PCD Predictive Tools

Tool	Number of Parameters	Key Components	AUC	Feasibility Limitations
PICADAR	7	Laterality, neonatal symptoms, chronic cough/rhinitis/ear symptoms	0.87-0.91	Requires known laterality; cannot assess without chronic wet cough [21]
Clinical Index (CI)	7	Neonatal respiratory distress, early rhinitis, pneumonia, recurrent bronchitis, otitis, nasal symptoms, frequent antibiotics	Comparable to PICADAR	Does not require assessment of laterality or cardiac defects [21]
NA-CDCF	4	Laterality defects, unexplained neonatal RDS, early-onset year-round nasal congestion, early-onset year-round wet cough	No significant difference from PICADAR	Lower sensitivity in some populations [21]

The study further demonstrated that combining these clinical tools with nNO measurement significantly improved predictive power for all instruments [21], supporting a sequential approach to patient identification in research settings.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

PICADAR Assessment Protocol

Data Collection Methodology:

• Conduct structured clinical interview prior to diagnostic testing
• Collect data on seven predefined parameters through direct questioning
• Verify neonatal history through medical records when available
• Assess laterality through chest radiography or echocardiography
• Document chronicity of respiratory symptoms (>3 months duration)

Scoring and Interpretation:

• Calculate total score based on predetermined point system
• Score ≥5 indicates high probability of PCD, warranting referral for specialized testing
• Score <5 does not completely exclude PCD, but suggests lower priority for specialized testing unless strong clinical suspicion exists [15]

Integrated Diagnostic Workflow for Research Studies

For research studies focusing on genetically confirmed PCD, the following protocol ensures comprehensive phenotyping and genotyping:

Research Reagent Solutions and Technical Requirements

Successful implementation of the integrated PCD diagnostic workflow requires specific technical resources and expertise. The following table outlines essential research reagents and solutions for establishing a PCD diagnostic/research laboratory.

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for PCD Diagnostics

Category	Specific Items	Research Application	Technical Notes
nNO Measurement	Chemiluminescence analyzer (Niox Mino/Vero), nasal olive probes, calibration gases [21]	Objective screening measure	Use velum closure technique in cooperative patients; tidal breathing in young children [17]
Ciliary Function Analysis	High-speed video microscope (≥500 fps), cell culture media, antibiotics, nasal brushing brushes [17] [21]	HSVA with beat pattern analysis	Always combine CBF and pattern analysis; repeat after ALI culture to exclude secondary effects [17]
Ultrastructural Analysis	Electron microscope, glutaraldehyde, osmium tetroxide, resin embedding materials, ultramicrotome [8]	TEM for hallmark defects	Process samples immediately; expertise required for interpretation [8]
Genetic Testing	DNA extraction kits, next-generation sequencing platforms, PCD gene panels (39+ genes), MLPA probes for common deletions [8] [21]	Genetic confirmation and genotype-phenotype correlation	Include DNAH5 and DNAI1 deletion analysis; consider whole exome for unsolved cases [8]

The integration of PICADAR into the ERS-recommended PCD diagnostic workflow represents a significant advancement in the standardized approach to this complex disorder. For research settings focused on genetically confirmed PCD, PICADAR provides a validated, cost-effective method for identifying high-probability cases before proceeding with resource-intensive specialized testing. The tool's demonstrated sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.75 at the recommended cut-off of ≥5 points [15] makes it particularly valuable for optimizing patient selection in research cohorts.

Future research directions should focus on further validation of PICADAR across diverse ethnic populations, refinement of scoring based on genotype-phenotype correlations, and development of modified versions for specific subpopulations, such as adults with limited neonatal history. As genetic understanding of PCD continues to expand, with over 50 genes currently identified [8], the integration of clinical prediction tools like PICADAR with advanced genetic testing will remain essential for comprehensive patient characterization and ongoing research into this heterogeneous disorder.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder characterized by abnormal ciliary function, leading to impaired mucociliary clearance. The diagnostic landscape for PCD is complex, with no single gold standard test, requiring a combination of highly specialized investigations including nasal nitric oxide measurement, high-speed video microscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and genetic testing [15] [22]. This diagnostic complexity creates significant barriers to early identification and stratification of patients for research and clinical trials.

The PICADAR (PrImary CiliARy DyskinesiA Rule) predictive tool was developed to address this challenge by providing a standardized, evidence-based approach to identifying patients with a high probability of PCD prior to complex diagnostic testing [15] [23]. In the context of genetically confirmed PCD research, PICADAR serves as a critical preliminary stratification instrument, enabling researchers to efficiently identify candidate populations for studies investigating genotype-phenotype correlations, therapeutic interventions, and natural history of the disease.

This technical guide examines the performance characteristics, implementation protocols, and research applications of PICADAR within a comprehensive PCD diagnostic and research framework, with particular emphasis on its validation in genetically confirmed cohorts.

PICADAR Tool: Components and Scoring

The PICADAR tool operates on a straightforward scoring system based on seven clinically accessible parameters readily obtained from patient history. The tool applies specifically to patients with persistent wet cough and incorporates the following predictive elements [15] [24] [25]:

Table 1: PICADAR Scoring Parameters and Point Values

Clinical Parameter	Point Value
Full-term gestation	2
Neonatal chest symptoms	2
Neonatal intensive care unit admission	2
Chronic rhinitis	1
Chronic ear symptoms	1
Situs inversus	4
Congenital cardiac defect	2

The scoring system generates a total point value ranging from 0 to 14, with a validated cut-off score of ≥5 points indicating high probability of PCD requiring formal diagnostic testing [15]. The parameters were derived through logistic regression analysis of 641 consecutive referrals to a PCD diagnostic center, with each point value corresponding to the regression coefficient rounded to the nearest integer [15].

Figure 1: PICADAR Clinical Decision Pathway

Performance Characteristics and Validation

Original Validation Metrics

The diagnostic performance of PICADAR was established through rigorous internal and external validation studies. In the original derivation study of 641 referrals (75 PCD-positive, 566 PCD-negative), PICADAR demonstrated excellent predictive characteristics [15]:

Table 2: Original PICADAR Validation Performance

Performance Metric	Internal Validation	External Validation
Area Under Curve (AUC)	0.91	0.87
Sensitivity (at cut-off ≥5)	0.90	-
Specificity (at cut-off ≥5)	0.75	-
Positive Predictive Value	-	-
Negative Predictive Value	-	-

The high AUC values in both internal and external validation cohorts indicate PICADAR's robust discriminatory power in distinguishing PCD-positive from PCD-negative patients across different clinical settings [15].

Real-World Performance and Contemporary Validation

Subsequent real-world validations have confirmed PICADAR's utility while highlighting important considerations for research applications:

• A 2020 real-world validation study comparing PICADAR with another predictive tool (NA-CDCF) found equivalent performance between both instruments, supporting PICADAR's utility in triaging patients for diagnostic testing [26].
• A Korean nationwide multicenter study (2022) demonstrated PICADAR's application in a genetically characterized cohort, with 18 of 42 diagnosed patients (42.9%) scoring ≥5 points [22].
• Recent investigations note that PICADAR may have limited sensitivity in specific subpopulations, particularly individuals without laterality defects or those with normal ultrastructural defects, highlighting the importance of complementary diagnostic approaches in research stratification [26].

PICADAR in Specialist Referral Pathways

Clinical Implementation Protocol

The integration of PICADAR into specialist referral pathways follows a standardized protocol to ensure consistent application:

• Patient Identification: Apply to patients with persistent wet cough from early childhood [15] [25]
• Data Collection: Gather the seven parameters through structured clinical history taking
• Scoring Calculation: Sum points across all parameters (range 0-14)
• Referral Decision: Refer patients with scores ≥5 for specialist PCD diagnostics
• Diagnostic Confirmation: Proceed with comprehensive testing including nNO, TEM, genetic testing [22]

Impact on Referral Efficiency

Implementation of PICADAR addresses critical inefficiencies in PCD diagnosis:

• Pre-test Probability Optimization: Identifies patients with high likelihood of PCD before resource-intensive testing [15]
• Resource Allocation: Directs specialized diagnostics toward high-yield candidates [24]
• Diagnostic Delay Reduction: Facilitates earlier identification of potential PCD cases [22]

In clinical practice, PICADAR serves as an effective triage tool, particularly in settings with limited access to specialized PCD diagnostic facilities, by identifying which patients warrant referral to specialist centers [15] [26].

Research Applications and Patient Stratification

Clinical Trial Enrichment

PICADAR provides a valuable stratification tool for research studies and clinical trials:

• Cohort Enrichment: Identifies populations with high PCD probability for genotype-phenotype correlation studies [22]
• Stratified Recruitment: Enables targeted enrollment of specific phenotypic subgroups based on score components
• Natural History Studies: Facilitates identification of incident cases for prospective observational studies

The Korean nationwide study exemplifies this application, utilizing PICADAR alongside TEM and genetic testing to characterize the clinical and genetic spectrum of PCD in previously undiagnosed populations [22].

Genotype-Phenotype Correlation Studies

PICADAR's structured phenotypic assessment enables sophisticated genotype-phenotype investigations:

• Component Analysis: Individual parameters (e.g., situs inversus, congenital cardiac defects) can be correlated with specific genetic variants [22]
• Quantitative Phenotyping: Total score provides continuous measure of phenotypic severity for association studies
• Population-Specific Validation: Performance characteristics can be established across diverse ethnic and geographic populations

In the Korean cohort, researchers successfully integrated PICADAR with genetic testing (identifying mutations in DNAH5, DNAAF1, and other PCD-associated genes) and TEM findings (predominantly outer dynein arm defects) to comprehensively characterize the PCD population [22].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Original Validation Methodology

The development and validation of PICADAR followed a rigorous methodological framework:

Study Population Derivation [15]:

• 641 consecutive patients with definitive diagnostic outcomes
• 75 PCD-positive (12%), 566 PCD-negative (88%)
• Data collected via standardized proforma prior to diagnostic testing

Statistical Analysis [15]:

• Logistic regression with forward step-wise variable selection
• Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis
• Internal validation via bootstrap methods
• External validation in independent cohort (n=187)

Diagnostic Reference Standard [15]:

• Combination of clinical history and ≥2 abnormal diagnostic tests
• Hallmark TEM defects characteristic of PCD
• Characteristic ciliary beat pattern abnormalities
• Low nasal nitric oxide (nNO ≤30 nL·min⁻¹)

Contemporary Application Protocol

Current research applications implement modified validation protocols:

Multicenter Study Implementation [22]:

• Retrospective analysis of diagnosed PCD cases across multiple centers
• PICADAR scoring applied post hoc to established cases
• Correlation with genetic and ultrastructural findings
• Performance assessment in specific subpopulations

Genetic Confirmation Framework [22]:

• Whole-exome sequencing with focused analysis of PCD-associated genes
• Variant interpretation according to ACMG/AMP guidelines
• Integration with TEM findings (outer dynein arm, inner dynein arm defects)
• Phenotypic correlation with PICADAR parameters

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for PICADAR Validation Studies

Reagent/Equipment	Specification	Research Application
Genetic Analysis Platform	Whole-exome sequencing (e.g., Illumina HiSeq 2500)	Identification of pathogenic variants in >40 known PCD genes [22]
Transmission Electron Microscope	High-resolution TEM with image analysis capability	Ultrastructural analysis of ciliary defects (ODA, IDA, central pair) [22]
Nasal Nitric Oxide Analyzer	Chemiluminescence analyzer meeting ERS standards	nNO measurement for diagnostic confirmation (≤30 nL·min⁻¹ suggestive of PCD) [15]
High-Speed Video Microscopy	≥500 frames per second capability with analysis software	Ciliary beat frequency and pattern analysis [15]
Data Collection Instrument	Standardized clinical history proforma	Systematic collection of PICADAR parameters across research sites [15]

Limitations and Research Considerations

While PICADAR demonstrates strong overall performance, research applications must account for several important limitations:

• Spectrum Bias: Developed and validated in populations already referred for PCD testing, potentially overestimating real-world performance [15] [24]
• Genetic Heterogeneity: May have reduced sensitivity in patients with normal ultrastructure or mild phenotypes [26]
• Geographic Variability: Performance may vary across populations with different genetic backgrounds and access to healthcare [22]
• Component Limitations: Individual parameters (e.g., situs abnormalities) have high specificity but low sensitivity [26]

Future research directions include developing population-specific modifications, creating age-stratified scoring systems, and integrating PICADAR with genetic screening algorithms for enhanced stratification in clinical trials and natural history studies.

PICADAR represents a validated, clinically practical tool that serves critical functions in both specialist referral pathways and research stratification for primary ciliary dyskinesia. Its standardized scoring system provides a reproducible method for identifying high-probability PCD candidates prior to resource-intensive diagnostic testing. In research contexts, PICADAR enables efficient patient stratification for genotype-phenotype studies, clinical trial recruitment, and natural history investigations. While limitations exist, particularly in genetically complex cases, PICADAR's integration with modern genetic and ultrastructural diagnostics creates a comprehensive framework for advancing PCD research and improving patient outcomes through early identification and targeted intervention.

Data Collection Best Practices for Reliable PICADAR Assessment

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a genetically heterogeneous disorder characterized by abnormal ciliary function, leading to chronic respiratory tract infections, situs abnormalities, and impaired fertility. The diagnosis of PCD remains challenging due to the nonspecific nature of its symptoms and the highly specialized, expensive testing required for confirmation. The PICADAR tool (PrImary Ciliary DyskinesiA Rule) was developed as a clinical prediction rule to identify patients who require specialized PCD testing. This technical guide outlines comprehensive data collection best practices to ensure reliable PICADAR assessment within the context of genetically confirmed PCD research, providing researchers and clinical scientists with standardized methodologies for optimal tool implementation.

PICADAR Tool Fundamentals and Scoring System

The PICADAR tool operates on seven clinically accessible parameters readily obtained from patient history. Its development involved 641 consecutive referrals to a PCD diagnostic center, with 75 (12%) receiving a definitive PCD diagnosis. External validation demonstrated robust performance characteristics, making it a valuable pre-screening tool in research settings prior to genetic confirmation [20].

Predictive Parameters and Scoring

The PICADAR tool applies to patients with persistent wet cough and incorporates seven predictive parameters with assigned points that sum to a total score used for risk stratification [20].

Table 1: PICADAR Predictive Parameters and Scoring System

Predictive Parameter	Criteria for Positive Finding	Points Awarded
Full-term gestation	Gestational age ≥37 weeks	2
Neonatal chest symptoms	Respiratory distress requiring ≥24 hours of supplemental oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)	2
Neonatal intensive care unit admission	Admission to NICU for respiratory concerns	1
Chronic rhinitis	Daily, perennial rhinitis starting in the first 12 months of life	1
Ear symptoms	Chronic otitis media with effusion or ≥4 episodes of acute otitis media annually	1
Situs inversus	Radiologically confirmed complete mirror-image arrangement of thoracic and abdominal organs	2
Congenital cardiac defect	Any structural heart defect confirmed by echocardiography or other imaging (excluding patent foramen ovale and patent ductus arteriosus)	1

Performance Characteristics and Interpretation

The PICADAR tool's predictive performance was validated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses, demonstrating an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 upon internal validation and 0.87 upon external validation [20].

Table 2: PICADAR Performance Metrics at Recommended Cut-off

Metric	Score ≥5 Points	Clinical Research Implication
Sensitivity	0.90	Correctly identifies 90% of true PCD cases; minimal false negatives
Specificity	0.75	Correctly excludes 75% of non-PCD cases; manageable false-positive rate for referral
Positive Predictive Value (PPV)	Not explicitly reported	Varies with population prevalence; estimated ~30-40% in moderate-prevalence settings
Negative Predictive Value (NPV)	Not explicitly reported	High NPV expected given high sensitivity; a low score reliably excludes PCD

Detailed Data Collection Protocols

Standardized data collection is paramount for maintaining the reliability and reproducibility of PICADAR assessments in research. The following protocols provide explicit methodologies for evaluating each predictive parameter.

Protocol for Assessing Neonatal Respiratory History

Objective: To consistently identify and document neonatal chest symptoms and NICU admission indications.

Materials: Data collection form, access to neonatal medical records.

Methodology:

• Review Delivery Records: Confirm gestational age at birth. Record ≥37 weeks as "full-term" and award 2 points.
• Screen for Respiratory Support: Scrutinize clinical notes for the first 72 hours of life. Document any instance of:
  • Supplemental oxygen administration via nasal cannula, hood, or mask for ≥24 continuous hours.
  • Use of CPAP or high-flow nasal cannula for ≥24 continuous hours.
  • Intubation and mechanical ventilation for respiratory distress.
  • Award 2 points for any of the above findings.
• Determine NICU Admission Cause: Cross-reference the NICU admission note with the primary diagnosis. If the admission was primarily for respiratory monitoring or support (e.g., transient tachypnea of the newborn, respiratory distress syndrome), award 1 point.

Protocol for Documenting Chronic Otolaryngological Symptoms

Objective: To objectively characterize chronic rhinitis and ear symptoms beyond parental recall.

Materials: Structured interview questionnaire, access to primary care or otolaryngology records.

Methodology:

• Characterize Rhinitis (1 point):
  • Temporal Pattern: Confirm symptoms are "daily" and "year-round" (perennial), not solely seasonal.
  • Onset: Establish onset occurred within the first 12 months of life via historical record or parental interview.
  • Quality: Document the presence of persistent nasal congestion or anterior/posterior nasal discharge ("wet cough" trigger).
• Quantify Ear Symptoms (1 point):
  • Chronic Otitis Media with Effusion: Require otoscopic documentation by a clinician of middle ear fluid on at least two separate occasions, ≥3 months apart, within a single year. OR
  • Recurrent Acute Otitis Media: Document ≥4 distinct, clinician-diagnosed episodes of acute otitis media within a 12-month period, with resolution between episodes.

Protocol for Confirming Situs and Congenital Heart Defects

Objective: To obtain radiological and cardiological confirmation of anatomical abnormalities.

Materials: Chest radiograph (CXR) or abdominal ultrasonography report, echocardiography report.

Methodology:

• Establish Situs Status (2 points):
  • Review radiology reports for CXR, abdominal ultrasound, or CT scans.
  • For situs inversus, the report must explicitly describe:
    • Cardiac apex on the right side (dextrocardia).
    • Gastric bubble on the right side.
    • Liver shadow on the left side.
  • Do not award points for situs ambiguus (heterotaxy); the tool specifically defines situs inversus.
• Identify Congenital Cardiac Defects (1 point):
  • Review pediatric cardiology or echocardiography reports.
  • Document any structural defect (e.g., atrial septal defect, ventricular septal defect, tetralogy of Fallot).
  • Exclude patent foramen ovale (PFO) and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in term infants, as these are common and not specific to PCD.

Implementing PICADAR in Genetically Confirmed PCD Research

Integrating PICADAR into a molecular research workflow enhances patient stratification and enriches cohorts for true PCD cases. The following diagram illustrates the recommended research pathway integrating PICADAR assessment with genetic confirmation.

Genetic Confirmation Methodology

Genetic testing serves as the gold standard for confirming PCD diagnoses in research. Next-generation sequencing panels specifically designed for PCD and related disorders are the preferred methodology.

Recommended Genetic Analysis:

• Panel Type: Utilize a comprehensive next-generation sequencing panel, such as the 383-gene Primary Immunodeficiency (PID) and Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) Panel, which includes assessment of non-coding variants [27].
• Diagnostic Yield: Such panels provide a broad molecular diagnostic scope, essential given the genetic heterogeneity of PCD and its phenotypic overlap with other immunodeficiencies.
• Tissue Source: DNA extracted from blood (min. 1 ml EDTA) or saliva is typically sufficient. For complex cases, especially with potential somatic mosaicism, DNA from a non-hematological source (e.g., skin fibroblasts) is recommended [27].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Studies

Reagent / Material	Function in PCD Research	Technical Specifications & Notes
PICADAR Data Collection Form	Standardizes the capture of all seven predictive clinical parameters.	Ensure it includes explicit criteria for scoring (e.g., "NICU admission for respiratory support").
Next-Generation Sequencing Panel	Genetic confirmation of PCD; identifies pathogenic variants in known PCD-associated genes.	A 383-gene panel (e.g., IM0801) also covers severe combined immunodeficiency and other differentials [27].
DNA Extraction Kit	Purifies high-quality DNA from patient samples for genetic analysis.	Must be compatible with whole blood (EDTA), saliva, or extracted DNA (min. 2 μg).
High-Speed Centrifuge	Processes biological samples for DNA extraction and other biochemical assays.	Standard laboratory equipment.
Electron Microscopy Equipment	Visualizes ultrastructural defects in ciliary axonemes (e.g., absent outer/inner dynein arms).	Used for functional phenotyping but requires specialized expertise and is highly expensive.
High-Speed Video Microscopy	Analyzes ciliary beat frequency and pattern in fresh biopsy samples.	A functional test that provides complementary data to genetic findings.

The PICADAR tool represents a significant advancement in the pre-screening landscape for PCD, offering a validated, cost-effective method to prioritize patients for definitive genetic testing. Adherence to the detailed data collection protocols and research integration strategies outlined in this guide is critical for maintaining the tool's high sensitivity and specificity in a research context. By implementing these best practices, researchers can construct robust, genetically confirmed PCD cohorts, thereby accelerating our understanding of the genotype-phenotype correlations and the development of novel therapeutic interventions for this complex disorder.

Identifying PICADAR's Shortcomings and Strategies for Improvement

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) represents a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder affecting motile cilia function, with an estimated prevalence ranging from 1:10,000 to 1:20,000 live births [28]. The diagnostic pathway for PCD remains challenging due to the genetic complexity of the disease, with over 40 implicated genes identified and approximately 20-30% of patients with a definite PCD diagnosis lacking an identified genetic cause [8]. This genetic heterogeneity complicates the development of universally sensitive diagnostic tools.

The PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule (PICADAR) was developed as a clinical prediction tool to identify patients requiring specialized PCD testing [15] [20]. Initially validated in a derivation cohort of 641 patients, it demonstrated high sensitivity (0.90) and specificity (0.75) at a cutoff score of ≥5 points, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 [15]. However, as genetic testing becomes increasingly integral to PCD diagnosis, a critical sensitivity gap has emerged between PICADAR's original validation and its performance in genetically confirmed cohorts.

This technical analysis examines PICADAR's real-world performance in genetically characterized populations, exploring the implications of this sensitivity gap for research and clinical practice.

PICADAR Tool: Original Validation and Methodology

Tool Development and Parameters

PICADAR was designed to provide a practical, evidence-based approach for identifying PCD patients before resorting to highly specialized diagnostic tests [15]. The tool applies specifically to patients with persistent wet cough and incorporates seven clinically accessible parameters, each assigned a points value based on regression coefficients from the original study [15].

Table 1: PICADAR Scoring Parameters and Point Values

Clinical Parameter	Points
Full-term gestation	2
Neonatal chest symptoms	1
Neonatal intensive care unit admission	1
Chronic rhinitis	1
Chronic ear symptoms	1
Situs inversus	2
Congenital cardiac defect	2

The scoring system yields a total possible score ranging from 0 to 10 points, with the recommended referral threshold set at ≥5 points [15]. In the original validation, this cutoff successfully identified 90% of confirmed PCD cases while maintaining specificity of 75%.

Original Validation Methodology

The original PICADAR derivation and validation followed a rigorous methodological framework:

• Study Population: 641 consecutive patients referred for PCD testing at University Hospital Southampton (2007-2013) [15]
• Diagnostic Reference Standard: Combination of clinical history plus at least two abnormal diagnostic tests ("hallmark" transmission electron microscopy (TEM), "hallmark" ciliary beat pattern (CBP), or nasal nitric oxide (nNO) ≤30 nL·min⁻¹) [15]
• Statistical Analysis: Logistic regression identified significant predictors, with performance tested via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis [15]
• External Validation: Conducted at Royal Brompton Hospital using 187 patients (93 PCD-positive, 94 PCD-negative) [15]

The external validation demonstrated maintained discriminative ability with an AUC of 0.87, confirming the tool's robustness across different patient populations [15].

Diagram 1: PICADAR Clinical Decision Algorithm

Performance Analysis in Genetically Confirmed Cohorts

Emerging Evidence of Sensitivity Reduction

Recent studies implementing comprehensive genetic testing alongside traditional diagnostic methods have revealed substantial limitations in PICADAR's sensitivity when applied to genetically confirmed PCD populations.

A 2023 Korean multicenter study provided critical insights into this sensitivity gap [8]. The research analyzed 41 pediatric patients diagnosed with PCD through TEM or genetic testing, with 12 patients receiving genetic confirmation [8]. Within this cohort, the study reported that only 15 of 41 patients (36.6%) achieved PICADAR scores ≥5 points [8]. This represents a dramatic reduction in sensitivity compared to the original validation (36.6% vs. 90%).

Table 2: PICADAR Performance Comparison: Original vs. Genetically Confirmed Cohorts

Performance Metric	Original Validation	Korean Multicenter Study (2023)
Study Population	641 referrals (75 PCD+)	41 PCD patients
PCD Prevalence	12%	100%
Sensitivity	0.90	0.366
Specificity	0.75	Not applicable
AUC	0.91 (internal)0.87 (external)	Not reported
Cut-off Score	≥5 points	≥5 points
Genetic Characterization	Limited	12 patients with genetic confirmation

The Korean study identified diverse genetic causes of PCD, with the most frequent mutations occurring in DNAH5 and DNAAF1 (3 cases each), alongside rare genotypes including RPGR, HYDIN, and NME5 [8]. This genetic diversity may contribute to the observed sensitivity gap, as PICADAR was developed prior to widespread genetic characterization.

Methodological Framework for Genetic Studies

Studies evaluating PICADAR in genetically confirmed cohorts employ specific methodological approaches:

• Study Design: Multicenter retrospective review with prospective genetic testing augmentation [8]
• Inclusion Criteria: Pediatric patients with confirmed PCD diagnosis via TEM or genetic testing [8]
• Genetic Analysis: Whole-exome sequencing using platforms such as Illumina HiSeq 2500, with variant analysis via Burrows-Wheeler Alignment Tool and annotation through SnpEff [8]
• Variant Interpretation: Classification according to American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) guidelines [8]
• Clinical Data Collection: Standardized assessment of PICADAR parameters through medical record review [8]

The integration of trio whole-exome sequencing (proband-parent) in some cases enables identification of compound heterozygous variants, expanding the genetic characterization beyond traditional methods [8].

Etiology of the Sensitivity Gap

Genetic and Phenotypic Heterogeneity

The observed sensitivity gap between PICADAR's original validation and genetically confirmed cohorts stems from several fundamental factors:

• Ultrastructural Diversity: PCD genotypes manifest in varied ciliary ultrastructure defects. Patients with mutations in HYDIN, RSPH9, RSPH4A, and RSPH1 genes typically display normal ciliary ultrastructure yet exhibit ciliary dysfunction [28]. These patients often lack situs inversus, a high-point parameter in PICADAR (2 points) [28].

• Laterality Defect Variability: Approximately 50% of PCD patients present with situs inversus [28], but this frequency varies substantially across genetic subtypes. Patients without laterality defects would automatically score lower on PICADAR, reducing tool sensitivity in these genetic subgroups.

• Neonatal Presentation Spectrum: While >75% of full-term neonates with PCD require supplemental oxygen [28], the severity and documentation of neonatal respiratory symptoms vary across healthcare settings and populations, potentially affecting the consistent application of this PICADAR parameter.

Diagnostic Workflow Integration Challenges

The integration of PICADAR within contemporary diagnostic pathways for PCD reveals additional limitations in genetically characterized populations:

Diagram 2: PICADAR in Contemporary PCD Diagnostic Pathway

The diagram illustrates how patients with low PICADAR scores may bypass essential diagnostic evaluations, creating a sensitivity gap where genetically confirmed PCD cases remain undiagnosed.

Research Implications and Methodological Considerations

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Comprehensive PCD diagnostic research requires specialized reagents and equipment to address the sensitivity gap in genetically confirmed cohorts.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Reagent/Equipment	Primary Function	Application in PCD Research
Transmission Electron Microscope	Ultrastructural analysis of ciliary defects	Identification of hallmark defects (ODA, IDA, microtubular disorganization) [2] [8]
High-Speed Video Microscopy System	Ciliary beat pattern and frequency analysis	Detection of abnormal ciliary motility characteristics [2] [28]
Nasal Nitric Oxide Analyzer	Measurement of nNO production	Screening tool with typically low nNO in PCD [2]
Whole Exome Sequencing Platform	Comprehensive genetic variant detection	Identification of mutations across >40 known PCD genes [8]
Ciliary Culture Media	Ex vivo ciliary differentiation and growth	Enables ciliary function analysis without infectious confounders [15]
Immunofluorescence Antibodies	Ciliary protein localization and quantification	Detection of missing ciliary proteins corresponding to genetic defects [2]

Recommended Methodological Enhancements

To address the identified sensitivity gap, future research should incorporate these methodological refinements:

• Prospective Genetically-Enriched Cohorts: Implement study designs that systematically include patients across the genetic spectrum of PCD, particularly those with normal ultrastructure or atypical presentations.

• Standardized Genetic Characterization: Adopt uniform genetic testing protocols using whole-exome or targeted panel sequencing with consistent variant interpretation according to ACMG guidelines [8].

• Extended Phenotypic Data Collection: Capture detailed information beyond core PICADAR parameters, including specific ciliary beat patterns, nNO values, and comprehensive imaging findings.

• Multivariate Analytical Approaches: Employ advanced statistical methods that account for genetic subtypes as effect modifiers when evaluating PICADAR's performance.

The sensitivity gap between PICADAR's original validation (90% sensitivity) and its performance in genetically confirmed cohorts (36.6% sensitivity in the Korean study) underscores a critical limitation in applying this clinical prediction tool to contemporary, genetically characterized PCD populations [15] [8]. This gap primarily stems from the tool's development prior to widespread genetic testing and its reduced sensitivity for PCD subtypes without classic clinical features such as situs inversus or severe neonatal respiratory distress.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these findings highlight the necessity of complementing clinical prediction tools with comprehensive genetic testing, particularly in research cohorts and clinical trials where missing PCD cases could substantially impact study validity and therapeutic development. Future efforts should focus on developing next-generation prediction models that incorporate genetic and molecular markers alongside clinical features to improve sensitivity across the increasingly recognized genetic spectrum of PCD.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare genetic ciliopathy disorder characterized by recurrent sinopulmonary infections, subfertility, and laterality defects, with an estimated prevalence ranging from 1:7,500 to 1:10,000 live births [29]. The diagnostic pathway for PCD is complex, requiring specialized testing including nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement, high-speed video microscopy analysis (HSVA), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and genetic testing [29]. The Primary Ciliary DyskinesiA Rule (PICADAR) was developed as a clinical prediction tool to identify patients requiring specialized PCD testing, using seven readily available clinical parameters to generate a risk score [15].

Within the context of genetically confirmed PCD research, a critical limitation of PICADAR has emerged: its significantly reduced sensitivity in patient subgroups without laterality defects, particularly those with situs solitus (normal organ positioning). This diagnostic blind spot creates substantial barriers to early intervention and personalized treatment approaches for this patient population. This technical review examines the performance gaps in PICADAR for situs solitus patients, analyzes the genetic and clinical characteristics of this subgroup, and proposes refined diagnostic protocols to address these challenges.

PICADAR Performance Analysis in Genetically Confirmed PCD

Original Validation and Clinical Parameters

PICADAR was originally developed and validated to provide primary care clinicians with a practical tool for identifying patients who should be referred for specialized PCD testing [15]. The tool incorporates seven clinical parameters readily obtained from patient history:

Table 1: PICADAR Predictive Parameters and Scoring Values

Predictive Parameter	Score Value
Full-term gestation	1 point
Neonatal chest symptoms	2 points
Neonatal intensive care unit admission	2 points
Chronic rhinitis	1 point
Ear symptoms	1 point
Situs inversus	2 points
Congenital heart disease	4 points

In initial validation studies, PICADAR demonstrated promising performance characteristics with sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.75 at a recommended cutoff score of ≥5 points, and area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.91 and 0.87 in internal and external validation, respectively [15]. The tool was specifically designed for patients with persistent wet cough, representing a key inclusion criterion.

Performance Limitations in Contemporary Genetically Confirmed Cohorts

Recent research with genetically confirmed PCD populations has revealed substantial limitations in PICADAR's sensitivity, particularly in specific patient subgroups. A 2025 analysis of 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD found an overall sensitivity of only 75%, significantly lower than originally reported [9].

The most striking deficit was observed in patients with situs solitus, where sensitivity dropped to 61%, compared to 95% in those with laterality defects [9]. Furthermore, the study identified that 7% of genetically confirmed PCD patients (18 individuals) were ruled out by PICADAR's initial screening question alone due to absence of daily wet cough, highlighting a fundamental limitation in the tool's design [9].

Table 2: PICADAR Performance in Genetically Confirmed PCD Subgroups

Patient Subgroup	Sample Size	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)	Sensitivity (%)
Overall PCD	269	7 (5-9)	75
With laterality defects	Not specified	10 (8-11)	95
Situs solitus	Not specified	6 (4-8)	61
With hallmark ultrastructural defects	Not specified	Not reported	83
Without hallmark ultrastructural defects	Not specified	Not reported	59

Stratification by associated ciliary ultrastructure revealed additional limitations, with sensitivity significantly higher in individuals with hallmark defects (83%) versus those without (59%) [9]. This finding is particularly relevant for certain genetic subtypes of PCD where ciliary ultrastructure may appear normal despite functional impairment.

Clinical and Genetic Characteristics of Situs Solitus PCD

Demographic and Diagnostic Presentation

The Saudi Arabian cohort study provides insightful data on the clinical presentation of PCD patients, with relevant implications for situs solitus cases. In this cross-sectional study of 28 patients from 20 families, the median age at diagnosis was 5.5 years (IQR = 2, 11 years), while the age when first symptoms appeared was 3 months old (IQR = 1, 6 months) [30]. This significant diagnostic delay of approximately 5 years highlights the challenges in early PCD identification, particularly in cases without obvious laterality defects.

Notably, the study found that patients with PCD and situs inversus were more likely to experience neonatal respiratory distress than patients with PCD and situs solitus [30]. The median PICADAR score in patients with situs inversus (median: 11.5; Q1: 10-Q3: 12.5) was significantly higher compared to those with situs solitus (median: 7.5; Q1: 5.8-Q3: 8) [30]. This scoring discrepancy directly impacts referral patterns and subsequent diagnostic evaluation.

Genetic Heterogeneity in Situs Solitus PCD

Genetic characterization of PCD cohorts reveals distinct patterns in situs solitus patients. In the Saudi Arabian study, the most common pathogenic variants were distributed across multiple genes: DNAH5 (17.9%), RSPH9 (14.3%), DNAI2 (14.3%), and LRRC56 (10.7%) [30]. This genetic heterogeneity presents additional diagnostic challenges, as different genetic subtypes may present with varying clinical features and ciliary ultrastructure.

Certain genetic subtypes of PCD, particularly those involving CCNO mutations, demonstrate a strong association with situs solitus presentation. A Chinese case series and literature review of CCNO-related PCD noted that situs inversus has not been reported in this genotype, while common clinical features include neonatal respiratory distress (81.6%), chronic cough (93.9%), rhinosinusitis (85.7%), bronchiectasis (74.3%), and low nNO (93.0%) [31]. In CCNO-PCD patients, cilia may appear structurally normal but were severely reduced in number or entirely absent, creating additional diagnostic complications when relying solely on TEM [31].

Diagram 1: Genetic and Clinical Heterogeneity in Situs Solitus PCD. This diagram illustrates the diverse genetic subtypes and diagnostic features that characterize situs solitus PCD patients, highlighting factors that contribute to missed diagnoses.

Radiological Findings in Situs Solitus PCD

Radiological features in situs solitus PCD patients may differ from classic presentations, potentially leading to misdiagnosis. In the Saudi cohort, the most common findings on chest CT scans were consolidation (seen in all patients), mucus plugging (seen in 95%), and bronchiectasis (seen in 77%) [30]. In patients with bronchiectasis, the most commonly affected lobes were the right lower lobe (88%) and left lower lobe (76%) [30].

Notably, in CCNO-related PCD, lung CT scans may exhibit diffuse micronodules and "tree-in-bud" signs, which can lead to clinical misdiagnosis as diffuse panbronchiolitis (DPB) rather than PCD [31]. This radiological similarity to other respiratory conditions represents an additional diagnostic challenge for situs solitus patients who lack the suggestive finding of laterality defects.

Enhanced Diagnostic Framework for Situs Solitus PCD

Limitations of Current Diagnostic Pathways

Current international data reveals significant variability in PCD diagnostic testing, with many patients receiving incomplete diagnostic work-ups. A cross-sectional study of 747 participants from 49 countries found that only one-third (36%) of participants reported all three primary diagnostic tests (nNO, biopsy, and genetics) [29]. The study also identified significant associations between testing patterns and patient characteristics, with recently diagnosed people reporting more tests [nNO odds ratio (OR) 2.2; biopsy OR 3.2; genetics OR 4.7] and those with situs abnormalities fewer tests [nNO OR 0.5; biopsy OR 0.5; genetics OR 0.7] [29].

This testing disparity suggests that patients with situs solitus may undergo more extensive testing before diagnosis, while those with obvious laterality defects may receive a diagnosis based on fewer confirmatory tests. This approach risks missing complex cases and limits understanding of the full phenotypic spectrum of PCD.

Integrated Diagnostic Protocol for Situs Solitus Patients

Based on the identified limitations in current approaches, we propose an enhanced diagnostic framework specifically optimized for situs solitus patients with suspected PCD:

Table 3: Enhanced Diagnostic Protocol for Situs Solitus PCD Suspicion

Diagnostic Modality	Protocol Application	Expected Outcomes
PICADAR Assessment	Use reduced threshold (≥4 points) for situs solitus patients; Do not exclude based on absence of daily wet cough	Improved sensitivity despite known limitations
Nasal Nitric Oxide	First-line screening; interpret with age-appropriate reference values	Low nNO (<30 nL/min) strongly suggests PCD in symptomatic patients
Genetic Testing	Early application via whole-exome sequencing or targeted PCD panels	Identification of pathogenic variants in >50 known PCD genes
High-Speed Video Microscopy	Assessment of ciliary beat pattern and frequency	Characteristic dyskinetic patterns support PCD diagnosis
Transmission Electron Microscopy	Multiple sections to evaluate ciliary ultrastructure	Identification of hallmark defects; may be normal in some genotypes
Immunofluorescence Microscopy	Assessment of ciliary protein localization	May reveal abnormalities even with normal ultrastructure

This protocol emphasizes the sequential application of multiple complementary diagnostic techniques, recognizing that no single test is sufficient for all PCD genotypes, particularly in situs solitus patients where clinical presentation may be less specific.

Diagram 2: Enhanced Diagnostic Protocol for Situs Solitus PCD. This workflow outlines a sequential, multi-modal diagnostic approach optimized for situs solitus patients, addressing limitations of current pathways.

Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Diagnostic Advancement

The development of improved diagnostic capabilities for situs solitus PCD requires specialized research reagents and methodologies. The following table details essential research materials and their applications in advancing PCD diagnostics:

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Diagnostic Innovation

Research Reagent	Application in PCD Diagnostics	Technical Function
Agilent SureSelect Clinical Research Exome v3	Targeted sequence capture for whole-exome sequencing [30]	Enrichment of exonic regions for comprehensive genetic analysis
PerkinElmer Chemagic DNA CS200 Extraction Kit	Genomic DNA extraction from patient samples [30]	High-quality DNA preparation suitable for downstream sequencing applications
NovaSeq 6000 Illumina NGS Systems	Direct sequencing of captured exome regions [30]	High-throughput sequencing with 2×150 bp paired-end read configuration
Anti-DNAH5, DNAI1, CCNO antibodies	Immunofluorescence microscopy for protein localization [29]	Visualization of ciliary protein defects in patients with normal ultrastructure
Specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) assays	Exclusion of allergic etiologies in differential diagnosis [31]	Identification of atopic conditions mimicking PCD symptoms
Nasal nitric oxide measurement systems	Non-invasive PCD screening with age-adapted protocols [29] [31]	Measurement of characteristically low nNO values in PCD patients

These research reagents enable the comprehensive diagnostic characterization necessary to address the current limitations in situs solitus PCD identification, particularly for genotypes with normal ciliary ultrastructure or atypical clinical presentations.

Implications for Therapeutic Development and Clinical Trials

Patient Identification for Targeted Therapies

The emergence of genotype-specific therapies for PCD creates increased urgency for accurate diagnosis across all patient subgroups. Recent developments include RCT1100, an inhaled mRNA-based therapeutic from ReCode Therapeutics targeting PCD caused by pathogenic mutations in DNAI1, which received FDA Orphan Drug Designation in June 2024 [32]. Similarly, Parion Sciences is developing P-1037, a novel epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) inhibitor designed to rehydrate airway mucus and restore mucociliary clearance [32].

These targeted approaches require precise genetic diagnosis, which remains challenging for situs solitus patients who experience diagnostic delays and may be underrepresented in research cohorts. Improved diagnostic protocols specifically addressing situs solitus cases are therefore essential for ensuring equitable access to emerging precision therapies.

Clinical Trial Design Considerations

The documented limitations in PICADAR sensitivity for situs solitus patients have important implications for clinical trial design. Recruitment strategies relying solely on traditional diagnostic criteria risk excluding substantial portions of the PCD population, particularly those without laterality defects or with specific genetic subtypes that present with normal ciliary ultrastructure.

Trial protocols should incorporate comprehensive genetic testing and consider multiple diagnostic modalities to ensure inclusion of representative patient populations. Additionally, subgroup analyses based on genetic variants and clinical presentation types (including situs status) will be essential for understanding differential treatment responses across the PCD spectrum.

The significantly reduced sensitivity of PICADAR in situs solitus patients represents a critical challenge in PCD diagnosis and management, with important implications for research, therapeutic development, and clinical care. The 61% sensitivity rate in this patient subgroup [9] underscores the urgent need for refined diagnostic approaches that account for the genetic and clinical heterogeneity of PCD.

Future efforts should focus on developing next-generation predictive algorithms that incorporate genetic data, radiological findings, and advanced functional assessments alongside clinical features. Additionally, increased awareness of the diagnostic challenges in situs solitus PCD is essential among clinicians and researchers to ensure timely diagnosis and appropriate inclusion in therapeutic trials. As genotype-specific treatments emerge, addressing these diagnostic disparities becomes increasingly critical for delivering personalized medicine to all PCD patients.

The diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) presents a significant challenge due to the genetic and ultrastructural heterogeneity of the disease. While transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has been a cornerstone of PCD diagnosis for decades, evolving genetic research has revealed substantial limitations in its diagnostic sensitivity, particularly in cases with normal ciliary ultrastructure. This whitepaper synthesizes current evidence quantifying TEM's performance gaps, explores the genetic mechanisms underlying normal ultrastructure PCD, analyzes how these limitations affect clinical prediction tools like PICADAR, and presents advanced diagnostic protocols that integrate genetic and functional approaches. Our analysis reveals that TEM alone fails to identify approximately 30% of genetically confirmed PCD cases, creating critical diagnostic delays that impact patient management and therapeutic development. These findings underscore the necessity for comprehensive genetic testing in PCD diagnostic algorithms, especially for cases with strong clinical phenotype but normal ultrastructure.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia is an inherited disorder of motile cilia characterized by chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease, neonatal respiratory distress in term infants, and organ laterality defects in approximately 50% of cases [33]. The estimated prevalence of PCD has risen from 1:15,000-1:30,000 to 1:7,600 with advances in genetic discovery, and reaches as high as 1:1,400-1:2,200 in specific populations such as Canadian Inuit and South Asian communities [33]. The classic PCD diagnostic approach has relied heavily on ultrastructural analysis of cilia via TEM, which identifies defects in the dynein arms, nexin links, or microtubular organization [34]. However, as genetic understanding of PCD has evolved, it has become apparent that a significant subset of patients with clinically classic PCD and confirmed biallelic mutations in PCD-associated genes display normal ciliary ultrastructure [34] [8].

This whitepaper examines the impact of evolving genetics on the understanding of PCD, focusing specifically on the poor performance of traditional ultrastructural analysis in normal ultrastructure cases. We frame this discussion within broader research on PICADAR (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) performance, exploring how genetic advances are reshaping diagnostic algorithms and revealing limitations in phenotype-based prediction tools. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding these diagnostic challenges is crucial for patient stratification in clinical trials, development of targeted therapies, and accurate prognosis prediction based on genotype-structure correlations.

Quantitative Analysis of Diagnostic Test Performance

Performance Metrics of PCD Diagnostic Modalities

Table 1: Performance Characteristics of PCD Diagnostic Methods

Diagnostic Method	Sensitivity	Specificity	Limitations	Genetic Correlations
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)	70-83% [18] [8]	>90% [34]	Misses 17-30% of PCD cases; requires specialized expertise	Normal ultrastructure in DNAH11, HYDIN, RPGR mutations
Genetic Testing	>70% (in known genes) [33]	~100% [8]	20-30% of patients have no identified mutation; variant interpretation challenges	Identifies pathogenic variants across >40 known PCD genes
Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO)	>90% (in children >5 years) [33]	>90% [33]	Limited utility in young children; requires cooperation	Low nNO across most genotypes, including normal ultrastructure cases
High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis (HSVA)	90% [8]	85% [8]	Requires specialized equipment and expertise; secondary dyskinesia confounds	Specific beat patterns may correlate with certain genetic defects
PICADAR Clinical Score (≥5 points)	90% [15] [20]	75% [15] [20]	Less accurate in cases without laterality defects	Performance may vary by genotype, particularly situs abnormalities

Prevalence of Normal Ultrastructure in Genetically Confirmed PCD

Table 2: Normal Ultrastructure Rates in PCD Genetic Subtypes

Genetic Category	Frequency in PCD	Normal Ultrastructure Rate	Key Representative Genes
Outer Dynein Arm Defects	~30% of PCD [8]	<5%	DNAH5, DNAI1, DNAI2
Outer and Inner Dynein Arm Defects	~25% of PCD [34]	<5%	CCDC103, DNAAF1-5
Inner Dynein Arm Defects with Microtubular Disorganization	~15% of PCD [34]	<10%	CCDC39, CCDC40
Central Apparatus Defects	~5% of PCD [34]	~30%	RSPH1, RSPH4A, RSPH9
Axonemal Assembly/Maturation Defects	~10% of PCD [33]	Variable (~20%)	DNAAF1-5, CCDC151
Normal Ultrastructure Group	~30% of PCD [34] [18]	100% (by definition)	DNAH11, HYDIN, RPGR

Meta-analyses of consecutive referrals to PCD specialty centers reveal that approximately 32% (95% CI: 25-39%) of suspected cases are definitively diagnosed with PCD [18]. Among these confirmed cases, TEM detects characteristic ultrastructural defects in 70-83% of patients, indicating that 17-30% of genuine PCD cases have normal ciliary ultrastructure [34] [18] [8]. This substantial false-negative rate presents a significant diagnostic challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings where TEM may be the only available specialized test [34].

Genetic Mechanisms Underlying Normal Ultrastructure PCD

Molecular Pathways in Normal Ultrastructure PCD

Figure 1: Genetic and Functional Pathways in Normal Ultrastructure PCD

The molecular basis for normal ultrastructure PCD involves several mechanisms:

3.1.1 Axonemal Assembly Completion with Functional Impairment Mutations in genes such as DNAH11 result in fully assembled cilia with normal 9+2 microtubular arrangement and dynein arms visible by TEM, but with impaired mechanical function. The DNAH11 gene encodes a heavy chain dynein motor protein critical for ciliary bending but not for structural assembly [33]. These cilia typically display hyperkinetic but ineffective beating patterns, demonstrating that structural integrity does not necessarily guarantee functional competence.

3.1.2 Subtle Defects Beyond TEM Resolution Mutations in genes including HYDIN and RPGR cause defects in the central apparatus or radial spokes that may not be readily apparent using conventional TEM [8]. These subtle alterations disrupt the regulation of ciliary beat frequency and waveform without gross structural abnormalities, leading to normal ultrastructure appearance but clinically significant mucociliary dysfunction.

3.1.3 Epigenetic and Regulatory Defects An emerging category of PCD involves defects in regulatory genes that control ciliary function without directly encoding structural components. These cases typically present with normal ultrastructure and pose particular challenges for diagnosis, as they may not be detected by either TEM or genetic panels focused on structural genes.

Genotype-Ultrastructure Correlations

Table 3: Genetic Variants Associated with Normal Ultrastructure PCD

Gene	Protein Function	Ultrastructural Appearance	Frequency in PCD	Clinical Notes
DNAH11	Outer dynein arm heavy chain	Normal	6-10% [33]	Lower prevalence of neonatal respiratory distress; relative preservation of lung function
HYDIN	Central pair apparatus	Normal	2-4% [8]	Requires specific TEM expertise for detection; may show subtle central pair defects
RPGR	Retinitis pigmentosa GTPase regulator	Normal	Rare [8]	Associated with retinitis pigmentosa; X-linked inheritance
GAS8	Nexin-dynein regulatory complex component	Mostly normal [18]	Rare	Subtle defects in nexin links may be detectable
RSPH1	Radial spoke head component	Normal or central pair defects	3-5% [18]	Variable ultrastructural presentation

Genetic studies across diverse populations reveal distinctive patterns of gene prevalence. In a Korean multicenter study, DNAH5 and DNAAF1 mutations were most common, while rare genotypes (RPGR, HYDIN, NME5) associated with normal ultrastructure were also identified [8]. The increasing identification of these genotypes through expanded genetic testing demonstrates the limitation of relying on TEM as a primary diagnostic tool.

Impact on PICADAR Performance and Clinical Prediction

PICADAR Performance in Genetically Diverse Populations

The PICADAR clinical prediction tool incorporates seven clinical parameters: full-term gestation, neonatal chest symptoms, neonatal intensive care admission, chronic rhinitis, ear symptoms, situs inversus, and congenital cardiac defects [15] [20]. While PICADAR demonstrates good overall accuracy (AUC 0.87-0.91) in unselected populations, its performance varies significantly across genetic subgroups.

In patients with situs inversus totalis (SIT), the median PICADAR score is significantly elevated (10 points, IQR 8-11), with 70.83% of SIT patients scoring ≥10 points [35]. This reflects the heavy weighting of laterality defects in the PICADAR scoring system. However, patients with normal ultrastructure PCD genotypes such as DNAH11 mutations show lower rates of laterality defects (approximately 50% have situs inversus), potentially reducing PICADAR's sensitivity in this subgroup [33].

Diagnostic Pathway Integration

Figure 2: Integrated Diagnostic Pathway for Normal Ultrastructure PCD

Experimental Protocols for Comprehensive PCD Diagnosis

Nasal Brush Biopsy Processing for TEM Analysis

Protocol Objectives: To obtain and process nasal epithelial samples for ultrastructural analysis of ciliary components, enabling identification of dynein arm defects, microtubular disorganization, and other structural abnormalities indicative of PCD.

Detailed Methodology:

• Sample Collection: Nasal brush biopsies are obtained from the inferior surface of the inferior turbinate or the posterior nasal cavity using a flexible nylon cytology brush. In pediatric patients or those with narrow nasal passages, a trimmed cervix brush may be used as an alternative [34].
• Immediate Fixation: Brushes are immediately placed in cold buffered glutaraldehyde (2.5% EM grade glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer, pH 7.01, with osmotic adjustment using 0.09 M sucrose, 0.01 M magnesium chloride, and 0.01 M calcium chloride) and stored at 4°C until processing [34].
• Sample Preparation: Under a dissecting microscope, brushes are gently cleaned of adherent mucus and debris while immersed in fresh fixative. Collected epithelial fragments are rinsed in buffer (3 × 30 minutes) with gentle centrifugation for pelleting when necessary (10 minutes at 500× g).
• Post-fixation and Staining: Samples are post-fixed in 1% buffered osmium tetroxide for one hour, followed by buffer rinses (3 × 30 minutes) and a final rinse in pure water (5 minutes).
• Dehydration and Embedding: Dehydration is performed through a graded ethanol series (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 100%) at 30-minute intervals, followed by three rinses in absolute ethanol. Resin infiltration uses Agar scientific low viscosity resin with progressive resin:ethanol ratios (1:3, 1:1, 3:1, pure resin). After overnight incubation in pure resin, specimens are transferred to embedding capsules and polymerized at 70°C.
• Sectioning and Imaging: Ultrathin sections (70 nm) are cut using an ultramicrotome (e.g., Leica EM-UC6), double-stained with aqueous 4% uranyl acetate (15 minutes) and Reynold's lead citrate (10 minutes), and viewed at 120kV on a TEM (e.g., FEI Tecnai Spirit) with digital image capture [34].

Quality Control Measures:

• Analysis of a minimum of 50 complete ciliary transverse sections per patient
• Assessment of ciliary orientation to ensure proper cross-sectional views
• Evaluation for secondary ciliary dyskinesia indicators (e.g., compound cilia, microtubular disorganization) that may suggest acquired rather than primary defects
• Comparison with healthy control samples processed simultaneously when possible

Next-Generation Sequencing for PCD Genetic Diagnosis

Protocol Objectives: To identify pathogenic variants in the growing number of genes associated with PCD (>40 known genes) using comprehensive genetic approaches.

Detailed Methodology:

• DNA Extraction: Genomic DNA is extracted from whole blood samples using standard purification kits, with quality assessment via spectrophotometry and gel electrophoresis.
• Library Preparation: Library production uses whole-exome sequencing approaches with hybridization-based target enrichment (e.g., Agilent SureSelect Target Enrichment protocol) with 1-μg input gDNA. The SureSelect Human All Exon V6 probe set provides comprehensive coverage of known PCD genes [8].
• Sequencing: Sequencing is performed on platforms such as Illumina HiSeq 2500 or newer systems, with sufficient coverage (typically >100x) for reliable variant calling.
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Raw sequence data are mapped to the reference genome (hg19) using alignment tools (e.g., Burrows-Wheeler Alignment Tool). Variant calling employs GATK best practices, with annotation using tools like SnpEff.
• Variant Prioritization: Focused analysis is performed on genes known to be associated with PCD, with filtering for rare (population frequency <1%), protein-altering variants. Analysis follows ACMG/AMP guidelines for variant interpretation, with special attention to:
  • Loss-of-function variants (nonsense, frameshift, canonical splice-site)
  • Missense variants in critical functional domains
  • Conservation across species and predictive computational damage scores
  • Segregation in family members when available (trio analysis preferred)

Validation and Reporting:

• Confirmation of pathogenic variants by Sanger sequencing
• Reporting of variants with clear pathogenic evidence, along with variants of uncertain significance with supporting data
• Correlation with clinical features and ultrastructural findings when available

Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Investigation

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for PCD Diagnostics

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Technical Notes
Fixatives for TEM	2.5% glutaraldehyde in cacodylate buffer, 1% osmium tetroxide	Preservation of ciliary ultrastructure for electron microscopy	Must be freshly prepared; osmium tetroxide requires careful handling
Embedding Resins	Agar Scientific low viscosity resin, Spurr's resin	Sample embedding for ultrathin sectioning	Low viscosity resins improve infiltration of ciliated epithelium
Staining Reagents	Uranyl acetate, Reynold's lead citrate	Contrast enhancement for TEM visualization	Lead citrate requires carbon dioxide-free environment to prevent precipitation
Genetic Analysis Kits	SureSelect Human All Exon V6, Illumina sequencing kits	Target enrichment and sequencing of PCD genes	Custom panels can focus on 40+ known PCD genes with additional research candidates
Antibodies for Immunofluorescence	Anti-DNAH5, anti-DNAI1, anti-RSPH1	Protein localization and assessment in cilia	Requires well-preserved, differentiated ciliated epithelial cells
Cell Culture Reagents	Air-liquid interface (ALI) culture media, bronchial epithelial growth medium	Ciliary differentiation and functional studies	ALI cultures allow regeneration of ciliated epithelium from biopsy specimens
nNO Measurement Systems	EcoMedics CLD88, Sievers NOA 280i	Nasal nitric oxide measurement as PCD screening	Requires specialized equipment and trained technicians for reliable results

Discussion: Implications for Research and Therapeutic Development

The evolving genetic landscape of PCD has profound implications for both diagnostic strategies and therapeutic development. The substantial rate of normal ultrastructure cases (up to 30%) confirms that TEM alone is insufficient as a standalone diagnostic test and must be integrated with genetic and functional assessments in comprehensive diagnostic algorithms [34] [18]. This is particularly relevant for drug development, as different genetic subtypes may respond differently to targeted therapies.

For researchers, the limitations of PICADAR in normal ultrastructure cases highlight the need for improved clinical prediction tools that incorporate genetic information. While PICADAR performs well in classic PCD with laterality defects, its sensitivity may be reduced in normal ultrastructure cases where laterality defects are less consistent [35] [33]. Future clinical prediction rules might incorporate specific clinical features more common in normal ultrastructure PCD, such as relatively preserved lung function in DNAH11-related disease [33].

From a therapeutic perspective, the normal ultrastructure PCD group presents both challenges and opportunities. While these patients lack the structural defects traditionally associated with PCD, they often experience similar disease progression and complications, suggesting that mucociliary clearance impairment rather than ultrastructural defect per se drives pathology. Therapeutic approaches targeting mucociliary clearance (e.g., hypertonic saline, dornase alfa) may benefit all PCD patients regardless of ultrastructure, while gene-specific therapies would require precise genetic diagnosis.

The integration of evolving genetic knowledge into the PCD diagnostic paradigm has fundamentally transformed our understanding of this heterogeneous disease. The substantial proportion of patients with genetically confirmed PCD but normal ciliary ultrastructure (approximately 30%) demonstrates the critical limitations of relying on TEM as a primary diagnostic tool. This has direct implications for PICADAR performance, as this clinical prediction tool shows reduced sensitivity in normal ultrastructure cases that lack the classic laterality defects heavily weighted in its algorithm.

For the research and drug development community, these findings underscore the necessity of comprehensive genetic testing in PCD diagnostic workflows, particularly when TEM results are normal despite strong clinical suspicion. Future directions should include the development of expanded genetic panels covering all known PCD genes, functional assays capable of detecting ciliary dysfunction despite normal ultrastructure, and genotype-specific therapeutic approaches that target the underlying molecular defects regardless of their ultrastructural manifestations. Only through such integrated approaches can we ensure accurate diagnosis and targeted treatment for all PCD patients, including those with normal ultrastructure who have historically been undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) represents a significant diagnostic challenge in respiratory medicine, characterized by genetic and clinical heterogeneity that inevitably leads to diagnostic gaps. Current evidence suggests that even with advanced genetic testing, approximately 7% of patients with strong clinical evidence of PCD lack identifiable biallelic mutations in known PCD-associated genes when only coding regions are analyzed. This technical review examines the populations systematically excluded from definitive diagnosis, the methodological limitations driving these gaps, and emerging solutions to increase diagnostic yield. We frame this analysis within the context of genetically confirmed PCD PICADAR performance research, providing drug development professionals with critical insights into patient stratification challenges and diagnostic technologies that must be addressed in therapeutic development pipelines.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder of motile cilia dysfunction with an estimated prevalence of 1:10,000-1:20,000 live births [2] [1]. The disease follows predominantly autosomal recessive inheritance patterns, with mutations in over 50 identified genes encoding proteins essential for ciliary structure, assembly, and function [36] [1]. The diagnostic pathway for PCD is complex, requiring a multifaceted approach incorporating clinical features, nasal nitric oxide measurement, ciliary ultrastructural analysis, genetic testing, and ciliary functional assessments [2] [5].

Despite these advanced diagnostic modalities, a significant subset of patients with strong clinical evidence of PCD remains without definitive diagnosis. Recent genetic research reveals that routine testing of coding regions in PCD-associated genes identifies biallelic pathogenic variants in only approximately 70% of clinically diagnosed patients [37]. This leaves approximately 30% of patients with incomplete or no genetic diagnosis, with an estimated 7% of clinically diagnosed PCD patients being automatically ruled out due to limitations in standard genetic testing methodologies that focus exclusively on exonic regions [36] [37]. This diagnostic gap has profound implications for clinical trial design, patient recruitment, and the development of genetically-targeted therapies.

Methodological Limitations in Current PCD Diagnostics

Standard Diagnostic Approaches and Their Yield

The diagnosis of PCD relies on a combination of complementary techniques, each with inherent limitations that contribute to diagnostic gaps. The following table summarizes the key diagnostic modalities and their limitations:

Table 1: Standard PCD Diagnostic Modalities and Their Limitations

Diagnostic Method	Reported Sensitivity	Key Limitations	Impact on Diagnostic Gap
Genetic Testing (Coding Regions Only)	~70% [37]	Cannot detect deep intronic variants; limited by VUS classification	Primary contributor to the 7% ruled out
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)	Variable by genotype [2]	Normal ultrastructure in 30% of PCD cases [1]	Misses normal ultrastructure cases
Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO)	~90% [2]	Can be normal in some PCD cases; low in other conditions [2]	Limited as standalone screening tool
High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis (HSVA)	>90% in expert centers [2]	Requires specialized expertise; not universally available [2]	Access limitations reduce diagnostic availability

The Genetic Testing Gap: Non-Coding Regions

The most significant factor contributing to the exclusion of approximately 7% of PCD patients from definitive diagnosis lies in the limitations of standard genetic testing approaches. Next-generation sequencing panels for PCD typically target only the exonic regions and immediate splice sites of known PCD-associated genes [36] [37]. This approach systematically excludes deep intronic regions where pathogenic variants can reside.

Recent evidence demonstrates that non-coding DNA variants in intronic regions represent an important source of pathogenic genomic variation in PCD [37]. These deep intronic variants can affect exon splicing, leading to aberrant transcript processing and ultimately abnormal protein expression. A 2025 study by Briggs et al. found that end-to-end gene sequencing (including noncoding regions) of 17 PCD genes in 42 patients with an incomplete genetic diagnosis identified novel, potentially pathogenic noncoding variants in 16 (38.1%) patients [37]. This increased the overall PCD genetic diagnostic yield from 46.8% to 50% in their cohort [37].

Table 2: Genetic Diagnostic Yield in PCD

Genetic Testing Approach	Diagnostic Yield	Limitations	Impact on 7% Gap
Standard Gene Panel (Coding Regions)	~70% [37]	Misses deep intronic variants	Primary cause of diagnostic gap
Whole-Exome Sequencing	Similar to gene panels [36]	Same limitations as targeted panels	Does not address gap
End-to-End Gene Sequencing	Increases yield by ~38% for incompletely diagnosed cases [37]	Identifies deep intronic variants; requires RNA validation	Reduces gap significantly
Whole-Genome Sequencing	Theoretical >90%	Comprehensive but costly; interpretation challenges	Potentially eliminates gap

Experimental Protocols for Enhanced PCD Diagnosis

End-to-End Gene Sequencing Methodology

The following detailed protocol is adapted from Briggs et al. (2025) for identifying pathogenic non-coding variants in PCD genes [37]:

Sample Preparation and Sequencing

• Select patients with strong clinical PCD phenotype but incomplete genetic diagnosis (heterozygous or no identified pathogenic variants)
• Extract genomic DNA from peripheral blood using standardized extraction kits
• Perform end-to-end next-generation sequencing of target PCD genes, including:
  • Coding exons and flanking intronic regions (typically ±20 bp)
  • Deep intronic regions (full gene sequencing)
  • 5' and 3' untranslated regions (UTRs)
  • Promoter regions (if evidence supports functional impact)
• Use custom capture panels or whole-genome sequencing approaches
• Establish sequencing depth of >100x for reliable variant calling

Bioinformatic Analysis and Variant Prioritization

• Process raw sequencing data through standard alignment pipelines (BWA-MEM, GATK)
• Annotate variants using ANNOVAR or similar tools with population frequency databases (gnomAD, 1000 Genomes)
• Filter variants based on:
  • Population frequency (<1% in control populations)
  • Predicted impact on splicing (SpliceAI, MaxEntScan, NNSPLICE)
  • Conservation scores (PhyloP, GERP++)
  • Location relative to known regulatory elements
• Prioritize variants predicted to create cryptic splice sites, alter enhancer/promoter function, or disrupt non-coding RNA genes

Functional Validation of Non-Coding Variants

• Obtain nasal epithelial cells via brush biopsy
• Extract total RNA and synthesize cDNA
• Perform RT-PCR amplification across predicted aberrant splicing regions
• Analyze PCR products by agarose gel electrophoresis and Sanger sequencing
• Confirm aberrant splicing patterns (exon skipping, intron retention, cryptic exon inclusion)
• Quantify expression of aberrant transcripts using quantitative RT-PCR

Immunofluorescence Microscopy Protocol for Ciliary Protein Localization

For cases where genetic results remain inconclusive, protein-level validation provides critical diagnostic information:

Sample Preparation and Staining

• Obtain nasal epithelial cells by brush biopsy or bronchial epithelial cells by bronchial brush
• Culture cells at air-liquid interface for 3-4 weeks to promote ciliogenesis
• Fix cells in 4% paraformaldehyde for 15 minutes at room temperature
• Permeabilize with 0.2% Triton X-100 for 10 minutes
• Block with 5% normal goat serum for 1 hour
• Incubate with primary antibodies against key ciliary proteins (DNAH5, DNAI1, DNALI1, GAS8, RSPH4A) overnight at 4°C
• Wash and incubate with fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies for 1 hour at room temperature
• Counterstain with acetylated α-tubulin antibody to visualize ciliary axonemes
• Mount with antifade mounting medium containing DAPI

Imaging and Analysis

• Acquire images using high-resolution confocal microscopy (63x or 100x oil objective)
• Capture z-stacks at 0.2-0.3 μm intervals to visualize entire ciliary length
• Process images for deconvolution if necessary
• Analyze protein localization patterns compared to healthy control cells
• Quantify fluorescence intensity along ciliary length using line scan analysis
• Document absent, diminished, or mislocalized protein signals as evidence of pathogenicity

Visualization of Diagnostic Pathways and Gaps

Diagram 1: PCD Diagnostic Pathway with Identified Gaps - This workflow illustrates how patients are systematically excluded from definitive diagnosis at multiple points, culminating in approximately 7% remaining undiagnosed despite comprehensive testing.

Diagram 2: Genetic Testing Limitations and Solutions - This visualization contrasts standard and enhanced genetic testing approaches, highlighting how methodological improvements partially address but do not completely eliminate diagnostic gaps.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Advanced PCD Diagnostics

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Considerations for Experimental Design
Antibodies for IF Microscopy	Anti-DNAH5, Anti-DNAI1, Anti-RSPH9, Anti-GAS8, Anti-acetylated α-tubulin	Protein localization in ciliary axonemes; validation of genetic findings	Lot-to-lot variability requires controls; species compatibility critical
Next-Generation Sequencing Panels	Custom PCD gene capture panels; Whole-genome sequencing kits	Comprehensive genetic analysis including non-coding regions	Coverage uniformity; inclusion of all known PCD genes; intronic coverage depth
Splice Prediction Tools	SpliceAI, MaxEntScan, NNSPLICE, Human Splicing Finder	In silico prediction of non-coding variant impact on splicing	Combine multiple algorithms; validate predictions experimentally
Air-Liquid Interface Culture Systems	Pneumacult, Ultroser G, specialized media	Differentiation of respiratory epithelial cells with cilia	Donor variability; extended culture time (3-4 weeks); quality control essential
RNA Extraction & Analysis Kits	Nasal epithelial RNA isolation kits; cDNA synthesis; RT-PCR reagents	Functional validation of splicing variants	RNA quality critical (RIN >7); rapid processing after sample collection
Anicequol	Anicequol	Anicequol is a neurotrophic ergostane steroid that inhibits anchorage-independent cancer growth. This product is for Research Use Only (RUO). Not for human use.	Bench Chemicals
Daumone	Daumone	Daumone is a synthetic glycolipid pheromone that induces the dauer stage in C. elegans. This product is for Research Use Only (RUO). Not for human use.	Bench Chemicals

Implications for Therapeutic Development and Clinical Trials

The exclusion of approximately 7% of PCD patients from definitive diagnosis presents significant challenges for drug development and clinical trial design. This genetically uncharacterized population may be systematically excluded from genotype-specific therapies, potentially limiting patient recruitment and market sizing for targeted treatments. Furthermore, the phenotypic characteristics and disease progression patterns in this subgroup remain poorly understood, creating uncertainty about their potential response to both generalized and targeted PCD therapies.

For pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies developing PCD treatments, we recommend:

• Incorporating functional endpoint clinical trials that do not require genetic diagnosis for enrollment
• Investing in research to characterize the molecular basis of disease in the undiagnosed population
• Developing diagnostic partnerships to implement end-to-end sequencing in clinical practice
• Designing flexible clinical trial protocols that can accommodate evolving diagnostic classifications

The identification of approximately 7% of PCD patients who remain undiagnosed despite comprehensive testing highlights critical limitations in current diagnostic methodologies. The implementation of end-to-end gene sequencing and functional assays represents a promising approach to reduce this diagnostic gap, yet significant challenges remain in variant interpretation, assay standardization, and equitable access to advanced diagnostics.

Future research should focus on expanding our understanding of non-coding genomic regions in PCD pathogenesis, developing high-throughput functional assays for variant classification, and establishing international databases for sharing variant information and phenotypic correlations. For drug development professionals, recognizing this diagnostic gap is essential for designing inclusive clinical trials and developing therapies that address the full spectrum of PCD pathophysiology.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) represents a rare genetic disorder characterized by impaired motile cilia function, leading to chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease and laterality defects. The diagnostic pathway for PCD remains challenging due to genetic heterogeneity, with mutations in over 50 identified genes, and the technical demands of definitive diagnostic testing. In this context, predictive clinical tools such as the PICADAR (PrImary CiliAry DyskinesiA Rule) score have emerged as crucial screening instruments to identify high-probability patients for subsequent advanced testing. This whitepaper examines the performance of PICADAR within a framework of genetically confirmed PCD, analyzes its limitations, and proposes evidence-based modifications alongside adjunctive screening strategies to enhance its clinical utility for researchers and drug development professionals. The integration of refined clinical prediction rules with accessible diagnostic technologies represents a promising pathway to bridge current diagnostic gaps and accelerate therapeutic development.

Performance Analysis of Existing Predictive Tools

Comparative Evaluation of PCD Predictive Instruments

Three primary predictive tools have been developed to stratify PCD risk: the Clinical Index (CI), PICADAR, and the North America Criteria Defined Clinical Features (NA-CDCF). A recent large-scale validation study on 1,401 patients with suspected PCD, with 67 (4.8%) genetically confirmed cases, provides critical comparative data [21].

Table 1: Comparative Performance of PCD Predictive Tools

Tool	AUC	Key Components	Limitations	Feasibility Considerations
Clinical Index (CI)	0.89	7-item questionnaire: neonatal respiratory difficulties, early rhinitis, pneumonia, recurrent bronchitis, chronic otitis, year-round nasal discharge, frequent antibiotic use [21]	Lower specificity compared to modified PICADAR	No need for assessment of laterality or congenital heart defects; applicable in all age groups
PICADAR	0.85	7 variables: situs abnormality, gestational age, neonatal chest symptoms, NICU admission, congenital cardiac defects, rhinitis, ear/hearing symptoms [21]	Cannot be assessed in patients without chronic wet cough (6.1% of cohort) [21]	Requires recall of neonatal history; some items need diagnostic confirmation (echocardiography)
NA-CDCF	0.80	4 criteria: laterality defects, unexplained neonatal respiratory distress, early-onset year-round nasal congestion, early-onset year-round wet cough [21]	Lower discriminative power compared to CI (p=0.005) [21]	Simple, rapid application but may miss atypical presentations

The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) analysis demonstrated CI's superior discriminative power (AUC=0.89) compared to NA-CDCF (AUC=0.80; p=0.005), while no significant difference was observed between PICADAR (AUC=0.85) and NA-CDCF (p=0.093) [21]. This performance data provides a crucial baseline for developing modification strategies.

PICADAR Performance in Adult Populations

The application of PICADAR in adult populations requires special consideration. A study focusing on adults with bronchiectasis implemented a modified PICADAR score, finding it highly effective for PCD screening in this demographic [38]. The research demonstrated that patients with PCD had significantly higher modified PICADAR scores (5±2) compared to non-PCD patients (1±1; p<0.001) [38]. Using ROC curve analysis, a modified PICADAR score cutoff of ≥2 showed optimal discriminative value with sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.89 in this cohort [38]. This adaptation for adult populations highlights the tool's flexibility and the importance of context-specific modifications.

Proposed Modifications to Enhance PICADAR Performance

Integration with Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement

The combination of clinical prediction tools with objective physiological measures represents the most promising avenue for enhancing PCD screening protocols. Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement has emerged as a critical adjunctive test, with demonstrated ability to significantly improve the predictive power of all clinical tools [21].

Table 2: Nasal Nitric Oxide Cutoff Values and Performance Characteristics

Population	Optimal nNO Cutoff	Sensitivity	Specificity	Clinical Utility
Mixed-age cohort	77 nL/min	Not specified	Not specified	Best discriminative value to differentiate PCD from non-PCD [21]
Adults with bronchiectasis	77 nL/min	Not specified	Not specified	Significant differentiation between groups (25 nL/min vs. 227 nL/min in non-PCD; p<0.001) [38]
Children >3 years	Protocol-based	High when combined with clinical scores	High when combined with clinical scores	Requires standardized measurement protocol [21]

The synergistic effect of combining nNO with clinical scores is profound. When PICADAR was used in conjunction with nNO measurement, the predictive characteristics improved markedly [21] [38]. This combination approach allows for a tiered screening strategy: high PICADAR scores trigger nNO testing, with concurrent low nNO levels indicating high probability of PCD and warranting definitive genetic or ultrastructural analysis.

PICADAR Modification Based on Contemporary Data

Analysis of the comparative studies suggests several evidence-based modifications to enhance PICADAR's performance:

• Flexibility for Atypical Presentations: Incorporating alternative items for patients lacking chronic wet cough (6.1% of suspected cases) would expand PICADAR's applicability [21]. Potential substitutes include chronic sinusitis imaging findings or bronchiectasis confirmation on CT imaging.

• Age-Stratified Scoring: Developing age-adjusted cutoffs would optimize performance across pediatric and adult populations, acknowledging the evolving clinical presentation throughout the lifespan.

• Integration of Genetic Risk Factors: Incorporating family history of PCD or consanguinity could enhance the tool's predictive power, particularly in populations with higher rates of familial cases.

The proposed modified screening pathway integrates these enhancements into a systematic diagnostic approach:

Experimental Protocols for Validation Studies

Protocol for nNO Measurement and PICADAR Correlation

Objective: To validate the combined use of modified PICADAR score and nasal nitric oxide measurement as a screening algorithm for PCD in patients with clinical suspicion of disease.

Patient Population: Patients aged ≥3 years with chronic oto-sino-pulmonary symptoms referred for PCD evaluation. Exclusion criteria: current smoking, acute respiratory infection within 4 weeks, nasal polyposis, or inability to perform measurement.

Methodology:

• Clinical Assessment: Administer modified PICADAR questionnaire capturing situs abnormalities, neonatal respiratory symptoms, congenital heart defects, chronic wet cough, rhinitis, and otologic symptoms.
• nNO Measurement:
  • Use electrochemical analyzer (Niox Mino/Vero) following ATS/ERS recommendations [21].
  • Apply tidal breathing technique or oral exhalation against resistance with patients seated.
  • Aspirate nasal air via olive probe in one nostril using passive sampling flow rate of 5 mL/s.
  • Express results in parts per billion (ppb).
  • Repeat measurement after 4-6 weeks if inconclusive or during respiratory infection-free period.
• Definitive Diagnosis:
  • Perform high-speed video microscopy (HSVM) via nasal brushing.
  • Conduct transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and genetic testing via next-generation sequencing (39-gene panel) for confirmation.
  • Convene multidisciplinary board for inconclusive cases.

Statistical Analysis: Calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for various PICADAR and nNO cutoff values using ROC curve analysis.

Protocol for Genetic Correlation Study

Objective: To determine the correlation between PICADAR scores and specific genetic mutations in confirmed PCD patients.

Patient Population: Genetically confirmed PCD cases (n≥100) with comprehensive clinical data.

Methodology:

• Genetic Testing:
  • Extract DNA from peripheral blood samples.
  • Perform next-generation sequencing using targeted PCD gene panel (≥39 genes).
  • Validate pathogenic variants with Sanger sequencing.
  • Classify mutations by type (missense, nonsense, splicing, indels) and predicted functional impact.
• Phenotypic Characterization:
  • Calculate PICADAR scores retrospectively from medical records.
  • Record nNO values when available.
  • Document ultrastructural defects from TEM.
• Correlation Analysis:
  • Group patients by genetic mutation class (microtubular defects, axonemal assembly, etc.).
  • Compare PICADAR scores across genetic groups using ANOVA.
  • Perform multivariate analysis adjusting for age at diagnosis and referral center.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Category	Specific Product/Platform	Research Application	Technical Considerations
nNO Measurement	Niox Mino/Vero (Aerocrine AB/Circassia)	Objective PCD screening [21] [38]	Standardized protocol essential; age-adjusted reference values needed
Genetic Analysis	Next-generation sequencing panel (39 PCD genes); KAPA hyperPlus kit (Roche); SeqCap EZ Prime Choice Probes (Roche) [21]	Genetic confirmation of PCD; genotype-phenotype correlation	MLPA for DNAH5 and DNAI1 deletions/duplications recommended
Ciliary Functional Analysis	Keyence Motion Analyzer Microscope VW-6000/5000	High-speed video microscopy (HSVM) for ciliary beat frequency and pattern [21]	Requires expertise in interpretation; repeat after infection resolution if secondary dyskinesia suspected
Ultrastructural Analysis	Transmission Electron Microscopy	Visualization of ciliary axonemal defects [21]	Quantitative analysis of dynein arms, nexin links, and microtubular organization
Cell Culture	Air-liquid interface (ALI) culture systems	Differentiation of basal epithelial cells to ciliated epithelium for functional studies	Allows genetic rescue experiments and pharmacologic testing
Immunofluorescence	Antibodies against DNAH5, DNAI1, GAS8, and other ciliary proteins	Assessment of protein localization and expression [21]	Complementary to TEM for specific defects
Crocetin dialdehyde	Crocetin dialdehyde, MF:C20H24O2, MW:296.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
spirotryprostatin A	spirotryprostatin A, MF:C22H25N3O4, MW:395.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Future Directions and Research Applications

The modification of PICADAR and integration with adjunctive screening tools has significant implications for patient stratification in clinical trials and therapeutic development. Recent methodological funding announcements from PCORI emphasize the importance of improving study design and supporting data research networks in comparative effectiveness research [39]. Enhanced PCD screening algorithms directly address these priorities by enabling more accurate patient identification and cohort establishment.

For drug development professionals, the refined screening approach enables:

• Precise Patient Recruitment: More efficient identification of genetically confirmed PCD cases for clinical trial enrollment.
• Stratification Strategies: Potential correlation of specific PICADAR components with treatment responses.
• Natural History Studies: Improved phenotyping for longitudinal outcome studies.

The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning methods, as highlighted in current research priorities [39], could further refine predictive algorithms by incorporating imaging data, pulmonary function trends, and microbiological patterns. Additionally, the development of novel CRISPR-based therapies [40] for specific genetic forms of PCD will demand highly accurate phenotypic-genotypic correlations, for which modified PICADAR scores coupled with nNO measurements provide an essential foundational element.

This comprehensive approach to PCD screening - combining validated clinical prediction rules with objective physiological measures and genetic confirmation - represents a robust framework for accelerating therapeutic development and improving diagnostic accuracy for this complex genetic disorder.

Evidence and Alternatives: Validating PICADAR Against Genetic Gold Standards

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder characterized by motile cilia dysfunction, leading to chronic otosinopulmonary disease and laterality defects in approximately half of all patients [1] [41]. As a genetically complex disease with over 50 identified causative genes, diagnosis has historically been challenging, prompting the development of clinical prediction tools to identify patients requiring specialized testing [1] [15]. The Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Rule (PICADAR) is one such tool, recommended by the European Respiratory Society to estimate the likelihood of a PCD diagnosis based on easily obtainable clinical features [6] [15].

While the original validation study for PICADAR reported a sensitivity of 90% [15], its performance against genetically confirmed PCD—increasingly considered a definitive diagnostic standard—requires critical evaluation. This technical analysis provides a comprehensive assessment of PICADAR's diagnostic sensitivity when benchmarked against genetic confirmation, offering researchers and clinicians evidence-based insights for diagnostic protocol development.

PICADAR: Tool Structure and Application

Original PICADAR Scoring Framework

The PICADAR prediction rule was designed as a practical clinical tool for use in non-specialist settings to identify patients requiring referral for definitive PCD testing [15]. The tool operates on a points-based system derived from seven readily obtainable clinical parameters from patient history:

• Full-term gestation
• Neonatal chest symptoms (within the first month of life)
• Neonatal intensive care unit admission
• Persistent perennial rhinitis
• Chronic ear symptoms or hearing impairment
• Situs inversus
• Congenital cardiac defect

The initial step in applying PICADAR is the identification of a persistent wet cough, which serves as an entry criterion. Patients without this symptom are considered negative for PCD according to the tool's algorithm [6]. For patients with persistent wet cough, the seven parameters are assessed and scored, with a total score of ≥5 points indicating a high probability of PCD and warranting referral for specialized diagnostic testing [15].

Intended Use and Original Performance Metrics

In its original derivation and validation study, PICADAR demonstrated promising performance characteristics. The tool was developed using data from 641 consecutive patients referred for PCD testing, of which 75 (12%) received a positive diagnosis [15]. The original validation reported:

• Sensitivity: 0.90 (95% CI not provided in original publication)
• Specificity: 0.75
• Area Under the Curve (AUC): 0.91 (internal validation) and 0.87 (external validation)

Based on these performance metrics, PICADAR was widely adopted as a screening tool in clinical practice and incorporated into diagnostic guidelines [6].

Contemporary Evidence: PICADAR Performance Against Genetic Confirmation

Study Methodology and Patient Cohort

A recent multicenter study conducted by Schramm et al. (2025) provides the most current and direct evidence of PICADAR performance in a genetically confirmed PCD population [6]. The study employed rigorous methodology:

• Patient Cohort: 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD from specialized centers in Germany and Denmark
• Reference Standard: Genetic confirmation of PCD through identification of biallelic pathogenic mutations in known PCD-associated genes
• PICADAR Application: Retrospective application of PICADAR criteria to patient clinical histories
• Statistical Analysis: Sensitivity calculations based on the proportion of individuals scoring ≥5 points, with subgroup analyses by laterality status and ultrastructural defect type

This study represents the largest available analysis of PICADAR performance exclusively in genetically confirmed PCD patients, providing high-quality evidence for tool validation [6].

The 2025 analysis revealed significant limitations in PICADAR's sensitivity when applied to a genetically confirmed PCD population [6]:

Performance Metric	Original Validation (Behan et al. 2016)	Genetic Confirmation Cohort (Schramm et al. 2025)
Sensitivity	90%	75%
Study Population	Clinically diagnosed PCD (n=75)	Genetically confirmed PCD (n=269)
Key Limitation	Not genetically confirmed	7% excluded for lacking daily wet cough

The most striking finding was that 18 individuals (7%) with genetically confirmed PCD reported no daily wet cough and would have been ruled out according to PICADAR's initial screening question [6]. Among the remaining patients, the median PICADAR score was 7 (IQR: 5-9), with an overall sensitivity of 75% (202/269) at the recommended ≥5-point cutoff [6].

Subgroup Performance Variations

The study revealed substantial variations in PICADAR performance across clinically important patient subgroups [6]:

Patient Subgroup	Sensitivity	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)
Overall Cohort	75%	7 (5-9)
Laterality Defects	95%	10 (8-11)
Situs Solitus	61%	6 (4-8)
Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects	83%	Not reported
Normal Ultrastructure	59%	Not reported

The dramatically higher sensitivity in patients with laterality defects (95%) compared to those with situs solitus (61%, p<0.0001) highlights a critical diagnostic gap [6]. Similarly, the tool performed significantly better in patients with hallmark ultrastructural defects (83%) versus those without (59%, p<0.0001) [6].

Technological and Methodological Frameworks

PCD Diagnostic Workflow Integration

The following diagram illustrates the position of PICADAR within the comprehensive PCD diagnostic workflow, highlighting points where genetically confirmed cases may be missed:

Figure 1: PCD Diagnostic Workflow Showing Points Where Genetically Confirmed Cases Are Missed by PICADAR

Research Reagent Solutions for PCD Diagnostic Studies

The following table details essential research reagents and methodologies employed in contemporary PCD diagnostic research:

Research Tool	Primary Application	Technical Considerations
Whole Exome Sequencing (WES)	Comprehensive identification of pathogenic variants in known PCD genes [42]	Detection rate ~73.1%; identifies novel variants; unbiased approach
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)	Ultrastructural analysis of ciliary axonemal defects [1] [18]	Detects hallmark defects in ~70-83% of PCD cases; misses normal ultrastructure cases
High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis (HSVA)	Ciliary beat pattern and frequency assessment [1] [41]	Requires specialized equipment and expertise; sensitivity ~96% when standardized
Nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) Measurement	Screening test with high negative predictive value [41] [42]	Cut-off values population-specific (77 nL/min in Western, 76 nL/min in Chinese populations)
Immunofluorescence (IF) Imaging	Protein localization for specific axonemal defects [1] [42]	High specificity but limited sensitivity; requires specific antibodies

Implications for Research and Clinical Practice

Diagnostic Algorithm Considerations

The finding that PICADAR misses 25% of genetically confirmed PCD cases, with particularly poor performance in patients without laterality defects or with normal ciliary ultrastructure, necessitates a reevaluation of its role in diagnostic algorithms [6]. This limitation is especially significant given that approximately 30% of PCD patients have normal ciliary ultrastructure [41], and a substantial proportion present without laterality defects [6] [41].

The American Thoracic Society guidelines emphasize that PCD diagnosis requires a composite approach, incorporating multiple diagnostic modalities [41]. The limited sensitivity of PICADAR in genetically confirmed cases supports this multimodal approach rather than over-reliance on any single predictive tool.

Future Directions and Alternative Approaches

For research and drug development professionals, these findings highlight the necessity of:

• Developing enhanced prediction tools that better capture the full genetic and phenotypic spectrum of PCD, particularly cases without classic laterality defects [6]

• Implementing broader genetic testing strategies in research cohorts, as genetic panels have demonstrated approximately 67.6% detection rates, while whole exome sequencing can achieve 73.1% detection [42]

• Considering population-specific genetic variations in research protocols, as evidenced by the unique mutation spectrum found in Chinese PCD populations [42]

This head-to-head comparison reveals a significant sensitivity gap between PICADAR's original validation (90%) and its performance in genetically confirmed PCD populations (75%) [6] [15]. The tool demonstrates particularly concerning limitations in key patient subgroups: those without laterality defects (61% sensitivity) and patients with normal ciliary ultrastructure (59% sensitivity) [6].

For the research community, these findings underscore that PICADAR should be applied with clear understanding of its limitations, particularly in studies targeting the complete genetic spectrum of PCD. While it remains a valuable initial screening tool, its moderate sensitivity against genetic confirmation standards necessitates supplementary diagnostic approaches, especially for patients with atypical presentations. Future efforts should focus on developing next-generation prediction tools that incorporate genetic and molecular markers to better capture the full heterogeneity of this complex genetic disorder.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous, autosomal recessive disorder caused by defects in the structure and function of motile cilia. This condition manifests with a characteristic clinical phenotype including neonatal respiratory distress in term infants, chronic wet cough, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic otitis media, and organ laterality defects [43]. The PICADAR tool (PrImary CiliARy DyskinesiA Rule) was developed as a clinical prediction rule to identify patients at high risk for PCD who should proceed with definitive diagnostic testing [9]. While the European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines recommend its use, recent research on genetically confirmed PCD populations has revealed critical limitations in its performance, particularly substantial variation in sensitivity across patient subgroups [9].

This technical analysis examines the performance of the PICADAR prediction tool within the context of a comprehensive diagnostic workflow for PCD, with particular focus on its dramatically different sensitivity in patients with laterality defects (95%) compared to those with situs solitus (61%). This differential performance has significant implications for research protocols and clinical trial designs in PCD, potentially introducing substantial selection bias if not properly accounted for in patient recruitment strategies [9].

PICADAR Tool Composition and Scoring

Tool Structure and Components

The PICADAR prediction tool employs a two-step assessment process. The initial gatekeeping question identifies patients without daily wet cough, who are ruled negative for PCD according to the tool's algorithm [9]. For patients reporting daily wet cough, the tool proceeds to evaluate seven clinical criteria, each assigned a specific point value, with a total score ≥5 points indicating high probability of PCD and recommending further diagnostic investigation [9].

Table 1: PICADAR Scoring Criteria and Point Values

Clinical Feature	Point Value
Upper respiratory symptoms from birth	2 points
Neonatal chest symptoms	2 points
Situs inversus	2 points
Congenital cardiac defect	2 points
Persistent perennial rhinitis	1 point
Chronic ear symptoms	1 point
History of sinusitis	1 point

Diagnostic Pathway Integration

The PICADAR tool functions as an initial screening step within a comprehensive PCD diagnostic pathway. Patients identified as high-risk (score ≥5) typically proceed to specialized testing, which may include nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement, high-speed video microscopy analysis (HSVA), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and genetic testing for PCD-associated mutations [44] [18]. The diagnostic sensitivity of each subsequent test varies, with TEM detecting approximately 83% of PCD cases in meta-analyses, leaving a significant proportion of PCD patients with normal ultrastructure undiagnosed if genetic testing is not performed [18].

Research Methodology for PICADAR Validation

Study Population and Design

The pivotal study examining PICADAR performance in genetically confirmed PCD populations employed a retrospective cohort design analyzing 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD [9]. Participants were identified from specialized PCD centers, with comprehensive clinical data collected through medical record review and standardized questionnaires. The study utilized genetic confirmation as the diagnostic gold standard, requiring biallelic pathogenic mutations in known PCD-associated genes [9].

Key inclusion criteria encompassed:

• Genetically confirmed PCD diagnosis
• Availability of complete clinical data for PICADAR scoring
• Comprehensive clinical phenotyping including laterality status

Exclusion criteria included:

• Incomplete clinical data
• Inconclusive genetic results (variants of uncertain significance without functional validation)
• Secondary ciliary dyskinesia due to other respiratory conditions

Data Collection and Statistical Analysis

Clinical data extraction focused on the specific parameters required for PICADAR scoring, with particular attention to the presence and quality of daily wet cough, the cornerstone initial screening criterion [9]. Additional data points included detailed neonatal history, chronicity of respiratory symptoms, and comprehensive laterality assessment through imaging studies.

Statistical analysis calculated overall sensitivity, defined as the proportion of genetically confirmed PCD patients correctly identified by PICADAR (score ≥5). Subgroup analyses stratified participants by:

• Laterality status (situs solitus, situs inversus totalis, situs ambiguus)
• Ciliary ultrastructural defects (hallmark defects vs. normal ultrastructure)
• Age at diagnosis
• Genetic mutation type

Sensitivity comparisons between subgroups employed appropriate statistical tests (Chi-square, Fisher's exact test) with significance set at p<0.05 [9].

Results: Differential Performance Across Subgroups

In the cohort of 269 genetically confirmed PCD patients, the overall sensitivity of PICADAR was 75% (202/269) [9]. The median PICADAR score was 7 (IQR: 5-9), indicating that most patients with genetically confirmed PCD did indeed score above the threshold for further testing. However, a significant finding was that 18 individuals (7%) with genetically confirmed PCD reported no daily wet cough and were consequently ruled negative according to the PICADAR algorithm, representing a fundamental limitation in the tool's design [9].

Laterality Defects Subgroup Analysis

The most striking performance disparity emerged when patients were stratified by laterality status. The sensitivity of PICADAR was dramatically higher in patients with laterality defects (95%) compared to those with situs solitus (61%), with a statistically significant difference (p<0.0001) [9]. The median PICADAR score in the laterality defects subgroup was 10 (IQR: 8-11), substantially higher than the situs solitus subgroup median of 6 (IQR: 4-8) [9].

Table 2: PICADAR Performance by Laterality Status

Laterality Status	Sensitivity	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)	Statistical Significance
Laterality Defects	95%	10 (8-11)	p<0.0001
Situs Solitus	61%	6 (4-8)
Overall Cohort	75%	7 (5-9)

Ultrastructural and Geographic Variations

Further stratification by ciliary ultrastructure revealed additional performance variation, with higher sensitivity in patients with hallmark ultrastructural defects (83%) compared to those without (59%, p<0.0001) [9]. This finding aligns with the observation that specific genetic mutations associated with normal ciliary ultrastructure (e.g., DNAH11 mutations) may present with less severe clinical phenotypes [44].

Geographic and ethnic variations in laterality defect prevalence further complicate PICADAR's generalizability. A Japanese study found situs inversus in only 25% of PCD patients, contrasting with the approximately 50% rate typically reported in Western populations [45]. This difference reflects variations in predominant genetic mutations across ethnic groups and would expectedly impact PICADAR performance in different populations [45].

Diagram 1: PICADAR Performance Disparity Between Subgroups

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for PCD Diagnostic Studies

Research Tool	Function/Application	Technical Specifications
Genetic Sequencing Panels	Identification of pathogenic mutations in >45 known PCD-associated genes	Next-generation sequencing platforms with comprehensive PCD gene coverage; Sanger sequencing confirmation
Transmission Electron Microscopy	Visualization of ciliary ultrastructural defects	Standardized fixation protocols; quantitative analysis of dynein arms, microtubule arrangement
High-Speed Video Microscopy	Analysis of ciliary beat pattern and frequency	Digital high-speed cameras (≥500 fps); specialized software for ciliary beat frequency analysis
Nasal Nitric Oxide Analyzers	Measurement of nNO as PCD screening tool	Chemiluminescence analyzers; standardized velum closure techniques for reproducible results
Cell Culture Systems	Exclusion of secondary ciliary dyskinesia	Air-liquid interface cultures; ciliogenesis-in-culture protocols to regenerate ciliary structure

Diagnostic Pathways and Research Implications

Comprehensive Diagnostic Integration

The limitations of PICADAR highlighted by this subgroup analysis underscore the necessity of integrating multiple diagnostic approaches in PCD research protocols. Nasal nitric oxide measurement serves as a valuable screening tool, with most PCD patients exhibiting low nNO levels regardless of ultrastructural status [44]. Transmission electron microscopy maintains importance but misses at least 26% of PCD cases, primarily those with normal ultrastructure [18]. Genetic testing has emerged as an essential component, with cell culture techniques enhancing diagnostic yield, particularly for the normal ultrastructure subgroup [44].

Diagram 2: Comprehensive PCD Diagnostic Pathway with PICADAR Integration

Implications for Research and Clinical Trial Design

The substantial performance variation in PICADAR based on laterality status has profound implications for PCD research and therapeutic development:

• Recruitment Bias: Studies relying solely on PICADAR for patient identification will significantly underrepresent situs solitus patients, potentially skewing study results and limiting generalizability of findings [9].

• Diagnostic Protocols: Research protocols must implement comprehensive diagnostic approaches that bypass the limitations of clinical prediction rules, particularly for situs solitus patients and those with normal ciliary ultrastructure [44].

• Phenotype-Genotype Correlations: The differential PICADAR performance reflects underlying biological variations in PCD pathogenesis, with laterality defects associated with specific genetic mutations that affect embryonic nodal cilia function [43] [46].

• Novel Tool Development: The identified limitations highlight the urgent need for refined prediction tools that maintain sensitivity across PCD subgroups, particularly as genetic heterogeneity continues to expand with discovery of new PCD-associated genes [9].

The subgroup analysis of PICADAR performance in genetically confirmed PCD reveals dramatic differences in sensitivity between patients with laterality defects (95%) and those with situs solitus (61%). This performance disparity, coupled with the tool's failure to identify 7% of genetically confirmed PCD patients who lack daily wet cough, represents a critical limitation with substantial implications for clinical practice and research methodology. These findings underscore the necessity of multimodal diagnostic approaches in PCD research that do not over-rely on clinical prediction rules, particularly for studies aiming to characterize the full spectrum of this genetically and phenotypically heterogeneous disease. Future development of refined prediction models should incorporate genetic and ultrastructural data to improve sensitivity across all PCD subgroups, thereby reducing diagnostic delay and enabling earlier therapeutic intervention.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder affecting the structure and function of motile cilia, leading to chronic oto-sino-pulmonary disease, laterality defects, and infertility [1]. Diagnosis remains challenging, with no single gold-standard test available. Consequently, diagnostic algorithms incorporate multiple approaches, including nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement, high-speed video microscopy analysis (HSVA), genetic testing, and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of ciliary ultrastructure [47] [1].

The PICADAR (PCD Rule) tool is a diagnostic predictive tool recommended by the European Respiratory Society to estimate the likelihood of PCD and guide decisions to initiate specialized testing [9]. However, its performance appears to be heavily influenced by the underlying ciliary ultrastructure of the patient. Recent genetically confirmed research reveals a significant disparity in PICADAR's sensitivity, showing 83% sensitivity in patients with hallmark ultrastructural defects but only 59% sensitivity in those with normal ultrastructure (NU) [9]. This "ultrastructure divide" has critical implications for diagnostic accuracy, patient enrollment in clinical trials, and the development of targeted therapies.

This whitepaper analyzes the quantitative evidence for this divide, explores the genetic and structural mechanisms behind it, details essential experimental protocols for robust diagnostics, and provides a toolkit for researchers and drug developers navigating this complexity.

Quantitative Analysis of Diagnostic Sensitivity

Analysis of a cohort of 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD reveals that the PICADAR tool's performance is not uniform across all PCD subtypes [9]. Its sensitivity is highly dependent on the presence of laterality defects and specific ciliary ultrastructural phenotypes.

Table 1: PICADAR Sensitivity Based on Patient Phenotype

Patient Subgroup	PICADAR Sensitivity	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)	Key Findings
Overall Cohort (n=269)	75% (202/269)	7 (5 - 9)	7% of genetically confirmed PCD patients were ruled out due to lack of daily wet cough [9].
Patients with Laterality Defects	95%	10 (8 - 11)	PICADAR performs excellently in this classic PCD phenotype [9].
Patients with Situs Solitus (normal organ arrangement)	61%	6 (4 - 8)	Significantly lower sensitivity in patients without laterality defects [9].
Patients with Hallmark Ultrastructural Defects (e.g., ODA/IDA defects)	83%	Information Not Specified	High but incomplete sensitivity even in classic TEM-positive cases [9].
Patients with Normal Ultrastructure (NU)	59%	Information Not Specified	Over 40% of genetically confirmed NU-PCD cases would be missed [9].

The data underscores a critical diagnostic gap: PICADAR has limited sensitivity, particularly in individuals without laterality defects (61%) or those lacking hallmark ultrastructural defects (59%) [9]. This indicates that over 40% of genuine PCD patients with normal ultrastructure would be missed if PICADAR alone were used to initiate diagnostic work-ups. This has profound implications for patient identification in both clinical and research settings.

Genetic and Ultrastructural Correlations

A significant proportion of PCD cases—approximately 30%—have normal ciliary ultrastructure on TEM or exhibit subtle, non-diagnostic changes [48]. These cases are genetically defined and cannot be detected by TEM alone, necessitating a combination of diagnostic modalities.

Table 2: Genetic Defects and Corresponding Diagnostic Findings in PCD with Normal/Non-Diagnostic TEM

Genetic Defect	TEM Findings	Nasal NO	HSVA Findings	Associated Clinical Notes
DNAH11	100% Normal	Low	Abnormal	A common genetic cause of PCD with normal ultrastructure [44] [48].
HYDIN	100% Normal	Low	Non-diagnostic	Technically challenging to detect with standard genetic methods due to a pseudogene [48].
RSPH4A, RSPH9, RSPH1	Up to 50-80% Normal	Low or Normal	Abnormal or Non-diagnostic	Central apparatus defects; can show transient central pair loss [48] [1].
CCNO, MCIDAS	Near-total absence of cilia	Low	Inadequate cilia for analysis	Defects in basal body generation; the scant cilia present may be normal [48].
GAS8	Mostly Normal	Low	Non-diagnostic	Part of the nexin-dynein regulatory complex (NDRC) [48].

The dependency of PICADAR on classic clinical features like daily wet cough since infancy and laterality defects explains its reduced sensitivity in NU-PCD populations. For instance, mutations in DNAH11, a common cause of NU-PCD, are often associated with relatively preserved lung function and a lower rate of situs inversus, directly impacting the PICADAR score [1]. Furthermore, patients with mutations in central apparatus genes (e.g., RSPH9, RSPH4A) do not have an increased risk of laterality defects, as embryonic nodal cilia naturally lack a central pair [1]. This genetically determined phenotypic variation creates the fundamental "ultrastructure divide" observed in PICADAR's performance.

Diagram 1: Genetic Impact on PICADAR Performance. This workflow illustrates how specific genetic mutations determine ultrastructural and clinical phenotypes, which directly impact the PICADAR score and create the diagnostic sensitivity divide. Abbreviations: TEM, Transmission Electron Microscopy; NU, Normal Ultrastructure; CP, Central Pair; IDA+MTD, Inner Dynein Arm Defect with Microtubular Disorganization.

Experimental Protocols for Comprehensive Diagnosis

Accurate diagnosis of PCD, especially in cases with normal ultrastructure, requires a multi-step, specialized protocol that moves from initial screening to definitive genetic confirmation.

High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis (HSVMA)

HSVMA is a functional test with excellent diagnostic accuracy when performed in expert centers [47].

• Sample Collection: A nasal brush biopsy is performed from the inferior nasal turbinate or the carina during bronchoscopy, after the patient has been free of respiratory infection for at least 4 weeks [47] [44].
• Sample Transport: Cells for HSVMA are transported in buffered medium at room temperature and analyzed within 3 hours of collection to maintain viability [47].
• Analysis Protocol:
  • At least six healthy strips of ciliated epithelium are recorded at a high frame rate (e.g., 500 frames per second) [47].
  • Recordings are played back at a slower speed (e.g., 30 fps) for qualitative assessment of the ciliary beat pattern (CBP) [47].
  • The CBP is assessed as normal, dyskinetic (static, uncoordinated, rotational, reduced amplitude), or inconclusive [47].
  • Ciliary beat frequency (CBF) is calculated, with a normal range typically between 11–20 Hz [47].
• Diagnostic Interpretation: A normal HSVMA requires both normal CBF and normal CBP. An abnormal CBP consistent with PCD (e.g., stiff, circular, or uncoordinated beating) is considered a positive result, even with normal CBF [47]. In cases of secondary damage or inconclusive results, re-analysis after cell culture (e.g., air-liquid interface (ALI) culture) is recommended to exclude secondary dyskinesia [44].

Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) with Quantitative Assessment

TEM is used to identify hallmark ultrastructural defects but requires rigorous methodology to avoid misdiagnosis.

• Sample Preparation: Nasal brushings or biopsy specimens are fixed in glutaraldehyde (e.g., 2.5–5%), post-fixed in osmium tetroxide, dehydrated in a graded ethanol series, and embedded in resin (e.g., Durcupan-Epon) [49] [50]. Ultrathin sections (70 nm) are placed on copper grids and contrasted with uranyl acetate and lead citrate [49].
• Image Acquisition and Analysis:
  • Electron micrographs are captured at a high original magnification (e.g., 25,000x to 60,000x) [47] [49].
  • A minimum of 50–100 ciliary cross-sections from different cell clusters are analyzed [48] [50].
  • Only cilia with clear structural features and an intact membrane are assessed, avoiding sections near the tip or base [48] [50].
• Classification of Defects: Ciliary ultrastructure is classified according to international consensus guidelines (BEAT PCD TEM Criteria) [50]:
  • Class 1 (Hallmark Defects): Outer dynein arm (ODA) defect, ODA+IDA defect, Microtubular disorganization with IDA defect.
  • Class 2 (Supporting Defects): Central complex defect, isolated IDA defect, etc. These require supporting evidence for a PCD diagnosis.
• Overcoming Limitations: To address subjectivity and improve quantification, software like PCD Detect (a ciliary image averaging tool) can be used. It reduces background noise by layering multiple cutouts, providing clearer visualization of dynein arms [50]. Automated analysis programs like PCD Quant are also in development to quantitatively assess defects and ciliary orientation on a large scale [49].

Diagram 2: PCD Diagnostic Workflow. This recommended diagnostic pathway highlights the multi-test approach required for accurate PCD diagnosis, especially when initial TEM results are normal or non-diagnostic. Abbreviations: nNO, nasal Nitric Oxide; HSVMA, High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis; TEM, Transmission Electron Microscopy; ALI, Air-Liquid Interface; WES, Whole Exome Sequencing.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers and drug developers aiming to study PCD or develop new therapies, a set of essential tools and reagents is required to navigate the complexities of this genetically heterogeneous disease.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for PCD Investigation

Tool/Reagent	Function/Application	Key Considerations for Use
Nasal Epithelial Cell Brushes	Minimally invasive collection of ciliated epithelium from patients.	Ensure sample viability for HSVMA by using appropriate transport media and short transit times [47].
Air-Liquid Interface (ALI) Culture Systems	De novo generation of ciliated epithelium from basal cells.	Critical for excluding secondary dyskinesia and providing ample cilia for repeat testing; increases diagnostic specificity [44].
Glutaraldehyde & Osmium Tetroxide	Primary and secondary fixation for TEM samples.	Essential for preserving the delicate ultrastructure of ciliary axonemes [49] [50].
PCD Detect Software	Computer-aided image averaging for TEM analysis.	Enhances objectivity in identifying and quantifying dynein arm defects by reducing background noise [50].
Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) Kits	Comprehensive genetic analysis to identify pathogenic variants.	Crucial for confirming diagnosis in TEM-normal cases and discovering novel PCD genes; allows for genotype-phenotype correlation [50].
Antibody Panels for Immunofluorescence (IF)	Localization of specific ciliary proteins (e.g., DNAH5, GAS8).	Used to detect mislocalization or absence of proteins, serving as a bridge between genetics and TEM findings [48].

The stark contrast in PICADAR sensitivity between hallmark defect (83%) and normal ultrastructure (59%) patients underscores a critical challenge in PCD diagnosis and research. This "ultrastructure divide" is rooted in the genetic heterogeneity of PCD, where mutations in over 50 genes produce a spectrum of structural and functional phenotypes [1]. Reliance on any single diagnostic tool, whether PICADAR or TEM, is insufficient to capture the full PCD population.

For researchers and drug developers, this has profound implications. Patient stratification for clinical trials must be based on genetic confirmation and not solely on traditional phenotypic markers or TEM findings. The risk otherwise is the systematic exclusion of a significant minority of patients—those with NU-PCD—from emerging therapies, such as mRNA-based treatments [51]. Moving forward, diagnostic pipelines must integrate functional assessments like HSVMA and comprehensive genetic testing to ensure all PCD patients are accurately identified and have access to personalized and potentially disease-modifying treatments.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia (PCD) diagnosis presents significant challenges due to the genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of the disease. This technical review provides a comprehensive analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the PICADAR clinical prediction rule alongside established biomarker tests—nasal Nitric Oxide (nNO) and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). Within a research framework focused on genetically confirmed PCD, we evaluate performance metrics, limitations, and complementary roles of these diagnostic approaches. Evidence indicates that while PICADAR offers an accessible initial screening tool with 90% sensitivity and 75% specificity in derivation studies, its sensitivity drops to 75% in genetically confirmed PCD populations, with particularly poor performance in cases lacking laterality defects (61%) or hallmark ultrastructural defects (59%). Compared to nNO and TEM, PICADAR represents a distinct diagnostic modality reliant on clinical features rather than physiological or structural measures, filling a unique niche in the PCD diagnostic algorithm for initial patient stratification prior to advanced specialized testing.

Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder affecting approximately 1 in 7,500-20,000 live births, characterized by impaired mucociliary clearance due to ciliary dysfunction [1]. The diagnostic pathway for PCD is complex, requiring a combination of complementary tests as no single modality achieves 100% sensitivity and specificity [52]. This diagnostic challenge is compounded by the extensive genetic heterogeneity of PCD, with mutations in more than 50 identified genes encoding various ciliary proteins [1].

The pursuit of a genetically confirmed PCD diagnosis represents the contemporary research standard, yet requires sophisticated resources and expertise. In this context, three distinct diagnostic approaches have emerged: the PICADAR clinical prediction rule, nasal Nitric Oxide measurement, and Transmission Electron Microscopy. Each method operates on different principles—clinical symptomatology, biochemical biomarker analysis, and ultrastructural assessment, respectively—with varying performance characteristics, limitations, and implementation requirements.

This technical review provides a systematic comparison of these diagnostic modalities, with particular emphasis on their performance in genetically confirmed PCD cohorts. We present quantitative performance data, detailed methodological protocols, and analytical frameworks to guide researchers and clinicians in optimizing diagnostic pathways for PCD investigation and therapeutic development.

Materials and Methods

Literature Search and Data Extraction

For this technical analysis, we synthesized data from primary research studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses addressing PCD diagnostic accuracy. Key data points extracted included sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC) values, and population characteristics for each diagnostic method. Quantitative data were tabulated for comparative analysis, with particular attention to study design, reference standards, and genetic confirmation status.

Diagnostic Test Performance Analysis

Test performance metrics were calculated using standard epidemiological formulae. The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) framework was applied where appropriate to account for between-study heterogeneity. Performance stratification based on patient characteristics (e.g., presence of laterality defects, ultrastructural phenotype) was performed to elucidate effect modifiers.

The PICADAR Clinical Prediction Rule

Development and Implementation

The PICADAR tool was developed as a practical clinical diagnostic predictor to identify patients requiring specialized PCD testing [15]. Derived from a prospective study of 641 consecutive referrals to a PCD diagnostic center, it aims to address the challenge of nonspecific PCD symptoms and limited guidance on referral indications for highly specialized testing.

Table 1: PICADAR Scoring System

Clinical Parameter	Points
Full-term gestation	2
Neonatal chest symptoms	1
Neonatal intensive care admission	1
Chronic rhinitis	1
Ear symptoms	1
Situs inversus	2
Congenital cardiac defect	2

The PICADAR tool applies specifically to patients with persistent wet cough and incorporates seven readily obtainable clinical parameters collected through patient history [15]. Each parameter is assigned a points value, with total scores ranging from 0 to 10. The recommended cutoff score for referral for diagnostic testing is ≥5 points.

Performance Characteristics

In the original derivation study, PICADAR demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.75 at the cutoff score of 5 points [15]. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.91 in internal validation and 0.87 in external validation, indicating good discriminative ability.

However, recent research in genetically confirmed PCD populations has revealed significant limitations in PICADAR's sensitivity [9]. In a cohort of 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD, the overall sensitivity of PICADAR was 75%, with 18 individuals (7%) reporting no daily wet cough—automatically ruling out PCD according to the tool's initial screening question.

Performance Stratification by Phenotype

PICADAR performance varies substantially based on patient phenotype. Sensitivity is significantly higher in individuals with laterality defects (95%) compared to those with situs solitus (61%) [9]. Similarly, stratification by associated ciliary ultrastructure shows higher sensitivity in individuals with hallmark defects (83%) versus those without (59%).

This performance heterogeneity underscores a critical limitation: PICADAR disproportionately misses PCD diagnoses in patients without classic laterality defects or with normal ultrastructure, populations that may represent important genetic subgroups for therapeutic development.

Established PCD Diagnostic Modalities

Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement

Nasal NO measurement has emerged as an important screening tool for PCD, with characteristically low levels in most patients. The test measures nasal nitric oxide concentration while patients maintain velum closure, typically through exhalation against resistance [52].

Methodological Protocol

• Equipment Setup: Chemiluminescence NO analyzer or validated handheld electrochemical device
• Patient Preparation: Avoidance of nasal manipulation, caffeine, and alcohol for 24 hours prior to testing
• Testing Procedure: Patient performs oral exhalation against resistance (0.3-0.5 L/s) into a NO collection tube while nasal NO is sampled from the contralateral naris
• Quality Control: Three reproducible measurements with <10% variation
• Interpretation: nNO values <30 nL/min in children or <77 nL/min in adults strongly suggest PCD

Performance and Limitations

nNO measurement serves as an efficient screening test with high discriminant ability between PCD and non-PCD subjects [52]. However, false negatives can occur in specific PCD populations, including patients with DNAH11 mutations who may exhibit normal nNO levels, and technical factors such as recent nasal pollution or inadequate velum closure can affect accuracy.

Transmission Electron Microscopy

TEM provides ultrastructural assessment of ciliary components and remains a cornerstone of PCD diagnosis, though it is limited by requirements for specialized equipment and expertise.

Methodological Protocol

• Sample Collection: Nasal brush biopsy of inferior turbinate or bronchial biopsy
• Sample Processing: Immediate fixation in glutaraldehyde, post-fixation in osmium tetroxide, dehydration, and resin embedding
• Sectioning: Ultrathin sections (60-90 nm) cut using ultramicrotome
• Staining: Uranyl acetate and lead citrate
• Imaging and Analysis: Assessment for specific defects including outer dynein arm (ODA) defects, inner dynein arm (IDA) defects, microtubular disorganization, and central pair defects

Performance and Limitations

A meta-analysis of TEM detection rates in PCD patients revealed a pooled detection rate of 83% (95% CI: 75-90%) [18]. This rate decreases to 74% when studies reporting isolated inner dynein arm defects are excluded. Importantly, at least 26% of PCD patients are missed by TEM alone, including those with normal ultrastructure (e.g., DNAH11 mutations) or subtle defects requiring specialized expertise for identification.

Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Table 2: Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of PCD Diagnostic Methods

Diagnostic Method	Sensitivity	Specificity	AUC	Detection Rate in Genetically Confirmed PCD
PICADAR (original)	0.90	0.75	0.91	-
PICADAR (genetically confirmed)	0.75	-	-	-
• With laterality defects	0.95	-	-	-
• Without laterality defects	0.61	-	-	-
• With hallmark ultrastructural defects	0.83	-	-	-
• Without hallmark ultrastructural defects	0.59	-	-	-
Transmission Electron Microscopy	0.83*	1.00*	-	0.83
Nasal Nitric Oxide	0.97-0.98	0.99-1.00	-	-

Pooled estimates from meta-analysis [18] *Range reported in literature for well-conducted measurements

Diagnostic Algorithms and Cost-Effectiveness

Research has evaluated various combinations of PCD diagnostic tests to optimize accuracy and resource utilization. A probabilistic decision analysis model comparing three diagnostic algorithms revealed significant differences in performance and cost-effectiveness [52]:

• Sequential nNO + TEM: Identified 198 of 320 expected PCD patients, with mean annual cost of €150K
• Sequential nNO + HSVM: Identified 274 PCD patients, with mean annual cost of €136K
• Parallel nNO/HSVM + confirmatory TEM: Identified 313 PCD patients, with mean annual cost of €209K

The parallel testing algorithm (nNO/HSVM+TEM) demonstrated superior effectiveness but at higher cost, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2.1K per additional PCD patient identified compared to the sequential nNO+HSVM approach [52].

Complementary Roles in Diagnostic Pathway

Each diagnostic modality occupies a distinct position in the PCD diagnostic pathway:

• PICADAR: Serves as an initial clinical screening tool to identify patients warranting specialized testing, particularly valuable in primary and secondary care settings
• nNO: Functions as an efficient physiological biomarker test with high discriminant ability, suitable for rapid screening in specialist centers
• TEM: Provides ultrastructural confirmation and phenotypic characterization important for correlating genotype with structural defects
• Genetic Testing: Represents the definitive confirmatory test, especially valuable for cases with strong clinical suspicion but inconclusive functional or structural testing

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for PCD Diagnostic Investigations

Reagent/Equipment	Application	Technical Specifications
Chemiluminescence NO Analyzer	nNO measurement	Detection limit: 0.1-5000 ppb, Sampling rate: 0.5-1 L/min
Glutaraldehyde Fixative	TEM sample preparation	2.5-3% in 0.1M sodium cacodylate buffer, pH 7.4
Osmium Tetroxide	TEM post-fixation	1% in same buffer as primary fixative
Anti-DNAH5 Antibody	Immunofluorescence testing	Mouse monoclonal, validates ODA assembly
High-Speed Video Camera	HSVM analysis	≥500 frames/second, minimum resolution 640×480
Nasal Brushing Biopsy Curette	Respiratory epithelial cell collection	2-3 mm diameter, flexible shaft

The comparative analysis of PICADAR, nNO, and TEM reveals distinct yet complementary roles in PCD diagnosis. PICADAR provides an accessible clinical prediction tool with moderate accuracy, serving as a valuable initial screening method, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, its limited sensitivity in genetically confirmed PCD populations—especially those without laterality defects or hallmark ultrastructural abnormalities—highlights the necessity for multimodal diagnostic approaches.

For research applications and therapeutic development, particularly within the context of genetically confirmed PCD, parallel testing strategies that combine clinical prediction rules with biomarker and structural analysis offer optimal diagnostic yield. The integration of PICADAR into a sequential diagnostic algorithm followed by nNO measurement and specialized ciliary analysis represents a cost-effective approach for patient stratification and resource allocation in PCD research programs. Future refinements of clinical prediction rules should incorporate genetic and ultrastructural phenotypes to enhance sensitivity across all PCD populations.

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, genetically heterogeneous disorder affecting approximately 1 in 20,000 individuals, characterized by defects in the structure or function of motile cilia [7] [53]. The diagnostic journey for PCD remains challenging due to the clinical variability and genetic complexity of the disease, with over 50 known associated genes identified to date [54]. This heterogeneity means no single diagnostic test can reliably identify all PCD cases, making the diagnostic process dependent on advanced expertise and specialized infrastructure available only at few specialized centers worldwide [53]. In this complex landscape, clinical predictive tools serve as crucial gatekeepers for determining which patients should be referred for specialized diagnostic testing.

The Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Rule (PICADAR) emerged as one such predictive tool, currently recommended by European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines to assess the likelihood of PCD [54] [9]. Originally developed by Behan et al. in 2016, PICADAR employs an initial screening question about daily wet cough in early childhood, followed by seven binary questions that generate a score from 0-12 points [54]. A score of ≥5 points suggests further diagnostic evaluation is warranted, with the original validation reporting a sensitivity of 0.9 [54]. However, as our understanding of PCD's genetic diversity has expanded, questions have emerged about whether tools developed primarily on patients with classic PCD presentations can adequately identify the full spectrum of disease variants, particularly those with normal body composition and normal ciliary ultrastructure [54] [9].

Current Limitations of PICADAR in Genetically Confirmed PCD

Recent research evaluating PICADAR in genetically confirmed PCD cohorts has revealed significant limitations in its sensitivity, particularly in specific patient subgroups. A 2025 study by Schramm et al. assessed 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD and found that PICADAR missed approximately 25% of true PCD cases [54] [9]. The study reported an overall sensitivity of only 75% (202/269), substantially lower than the originally reported 90% [54]. The performance limitations became even more pronounced when examining specific patient subgroups based on clinical presentation and genetic profile.

Table 1: PICADAR Sensitivity Analysis in Genetically Confirmed PCD Cohorts

Patient Subgroup	Sensitivity	Median PICADAR Score (IQR)	Statistical Significance
Overall PCD cohort	75% (202/269)	7 (5-9)	Reference
With laterality defects	95%	10 (8-11)	p<0.0001
With situs solitus (normal arrangement)	61%	6 (4-8)	p<0.0001
With hallmark ultrastructural defects	83%	Not reported	p<0.0001
Without hallmark ultrastructural defects	59%	Not reported	p<0.0001

A critical finding was that 7% (18/269) of genetically confirmed PCD patients reported no daily wet cough, which automatically rules out PCD according to PICADAR's initial screening question [54]. This fundamental structural limitation means PICADAR cannot possibly identify these patients, regardless of their other clinical features. The significantly lower sensitivity in patients with situs solitus (61%) and those without hallmark ultrastructural defects (59%) highlights PICADAR's bias toward detecting PCD with classic presentations [54] [9]. These findings have profound implications for PCD diagnosis, as reliance on PICADAR alone may systematically exclude patients with atypical or non-classical PCD presentations from receiving necessary diagnostic evaluation.

Methodological Framework for Evaluating Predictive Tools

Study Population Selection and Characterization

Robust evaluation of predictive tools requires carefully characterized patient populations. The 2025 sensitivity analysis employed a cohort of 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD from the international European Reference Network (ERN) LUNG PCD registry, hosted at the University of Münster [54]. Genetic variants were evaluated according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) guidelines, including only individuals with bi-allelic, hemizygous, or mono-allelic disease-causing variants [54]. This rigorous genetic confirmation ensures the study population definitively has PCD, providing an unambiguous reference standard for sensitivity calculations.

For subgroup analyses, researchers implemented a systematic stratification approach: First, dividing the cohort into those with situs solitus (normal organ arrangement) versus those with any type of laterality defects [54]. Second, creating subgroups based on genetic association with hallmark defects of ciliary ultrastructure detectable by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), as described by Raidt et al. 2024 [54]. This methodological approach enables precise determination of how predictive tool performance varies across clinically relevant patient subgroups.

PICADAR Administration and Scoring Protocol

The PICADAR evaluation followed a standardized administration protocol. Pulmonary teams at the University Hospital Münster and the University of Copenhagen administered questionnaires during patient consultations or with legal guardians for young children [54]. The scoring methodology strictly adhered to Behan et al.'s original description: if the response to the initial question - "Does the patient have a daily wet cough that started in early childhood?" - was negative, the questionnaire was stopped and a score of 0 assigned [54]. For affirmative responses, participants answered seven additional questions covering clinical features such as neonatal respiratory symptoms, specific organ laterality, and chronic sinusitis or otitis media [54]. When patients were unable to answer specific questions, a conservative approach assuming 'no' responses was implemented, and unknown gestational age was assumed to be term birth [54]. This consistent administration protocol ensures reliable comparison across patients and centers.

Table 2: Essential Research Materials for Predictive Tool Evaluation

Research Reagent/Resource	Specification Purpose	Experimental Function
Genetically Confirmed PCD Cohort	269 patients with definitive genetic diagnosis	Gold standard reference for sensitivity calculations
ERN LUNG PCD Registry	International database infrastructure	Standardized data collection across multiple centers
PICADAR Questionnaire	Validated 8-item instrument (1 screening + 7 scoring questions)	Standardized symptom assessment and risk scoring
Statistical Analysis Platform	R 4.5.1 with Tidyverse 2.0.0	Data analysis and visualization
Subgroup Classification Criteria	Based on laterality and ultrastructural defects	Stratified performance analysis

Statistical Analysis Framework

The statistical approach employed rigorous methods appropriate for diagnostic test evaluation. Researchers used R version 4.5.1 with Tidyverse 2.0.0 package for statistical analysis and visualization [54]. Sensitivity calculations were based on the proportion of individuals scoring ≥5 points out of 12, following PICADAR's recommended cutoff [54]. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney-U tests compared the distribution of PICADAR scores and age across subgroups, while Fisher's exact test assessed associations between positive/negative PICADAR results and sex distribution [54]. The analysis presented median values with interquartile ranges (IQR) in parentheses, maintaining consistency in descriptive statistics throughout the evaluation [54].

Essential Components for Next-Generation Predictive Tools

Integration of Multimodal Diagnostic Data

Next-generation predictive tools must integrate diverse data types beyond clinical symptoms alone. Current comprehensive PCD diagnostic approaches successfully combine multiple methodologies, including high-speed video microscopy (HSVM) for ciliary motility analysis, immunofluorescence staining (IF) of structural proteins, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) for ultrastructural assessment, genetic testing, and nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement [53]. The PCD-UNIBE center in Switzerland reported that among their first 17 diagnosed PCD cases, HSVM was diagnostic in 12, IF in 14, TEM in 5, and genetics in 11 cases, with none of the methods alone identifying all PCD cases [53]. This demonstrates both the necessity and challenge of multimodal integration. Future predictive tools should incorporate quantitative outputs from these specialized tests where available, creating a weighted scoring system that acknowledges both clinical features and objective laboratory findings.

Genomic Architecture and Molecular Subtype Integration

The genetic revolution in PCD understanding must be reflected in next-generation predictive tools. With over 50 identified PCD-associated genes and significant phenotypic variability depending on which gene is affected, predictive algorithms must account for this molecular heterogeneity [54] [9]. The 2025 sensitivity analysis revealed that PICADAR's performance strongly correlates with genetic subtypes, showing significantly higher sensitivity in patients with hallmark ultrastructural defects (83%) compared to those without (59%) [54]. Next-generation tools should incorporate genetic data directly when available, or use clinical features as proxies for genetic subtypes when not. This might include pattern recognition of symptom clusters associated with specific genetic variants, such as the association between laterality defects and specific ciliary gene mutations.

Machine Learning and Adaptive Algorithm Implementation

Next-generation predictive tools should leverage machine learning approaches that can adapt to evolving PCD understanding. Rather than static questionnaires with fixed point assignments, adaptive algorithms could continuously incorporate new genotype-phenotype correlations as they emerge. Such approaches have demonstrated success in other complex medical domains; for instance, in prenatal diagnosis, gradient boosting-based machine learning algorithms have achieved up to 95.31% accuracy in predicting Down syndrome risk using first-trimester screening data [55]. Similarly, synthetic data generation approaches have enabled the development of more accurate classification models for fetal chromosomal aneuploidies when real positive cases are scarce [56]. These computational strategies could be adapted for PCD, addressing the challenge of rare disease diagnosis where limited positive cases hinder algorithm development.

Validation Frameworks for Evolving Diagnostic Tools

Next-generation predictive tools require robust validation frameworks that acknowledge PCD's heterogeneity. The 2025 PICADAR evaluation established important methodological standards through its rigorous subgroup analysis, but future validation should extend beyond single-timepoint assessment [54] [9]. Proposed validation frameworks should include:

• Prospective multi-center validation across diverse geographic and demographic populations
• Longitudinal performance monitoring to detect diagnostic delays in false-negative cases
• Algorithmic fairness auditing across genetic subtypes, demographic groups, and clinical presentations
• Integration capacity testing with evolving diagnostic technologies and newly discovered genetic variants

Such comprehensive validation ensures that predictive tools remain effective as diagnostic technologies advance and our understanding of PCD continues to expand.

Implementation Roadmap for Next-Generation Predictive Tools

The development of next-generation predictive tools requires systematic progression through development stages. The first phase should focus on data harmonization and consortium building, creating large, diverse datasets that adequately represent the full spectrum of PCD genetics and presentations. International collaborations like the ERN LUNG PCD registry provide infrastructure models for such efforts [54]. The second phase involves algorithm development using machine learning approaches on these consolidated datasets, with careful attention to avoiding biases toward classic PCD presentations. The third phase consists of rigorous validation across multiple independent cohorts, with particular emphasis on demonstrating improved sensitivity in currently under-recognized PCD subgroups. Finally, implementation strategies must include integration pathways with existing diagnostic workflows and healthcare systems, ensuring these advanced tools reach the patients and clinicians who need them.

This roadmap acknowledges that while current tools like PICADAR serve an important role in P diagnosis, their significant limitations in genetically confirmed cohorts necessitate a fundamental reimagining of how we identify patients for specialized testing [54] [9]. By embracing multimodal data integration, molecular subtype awareness, and advanced computational methods, the next generation of predictive tools can accelerate accurate diagnosis for all PCD patients, regardless of their clinical presentation or genetic subtype.

Conclusion

The PICADAR tool, while valuable for identifying classic PCD presentations, demonstrates substantial limitations in sensitivity when applied to a modern, genetically diverse PCD population. Its performance is highly variable, excelling in patients with laterality defects but failing to identify over a third of patients with situs solitus or normal ciliary ultrastructure. This validation against genetic confirmation highlights a critical need for the development of more robust, inclusive, and genetically-informed diagnostic prediction models. Future directions for biomedical research must focus on creating refined algorithms that incorporate genetic and molecular data to ensure all PCD patients are identified early, enabling timely intervention and accurate recruitment for clinical trials and drug development.

References

• 1. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia—Current Diagnostic and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12525432/]
• 2. Diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5584715/]
• 3. The global prevalence and ethnic heterogeneity of primary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9064931/]
• 4. The global prevalence and ethnic heterogeneity of primary ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35051411/]
• 5. Diagnosing PCD [https://www.pcdfoundation.org/diagnosis/]
• 6. Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.09.22.25336363v1]
• 7. Practical guide for the diagnosis and management of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0385814624000166]
• 8. Clinical Manifestations and Genotype of Primary Ciliary ... [https://e-aair.org/DOIx.php?id=10.4168/aair.2023.15.6.757]
• 9. Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2025.1691758/full]
• 10. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia - GeneReviews® - NCBI Bookshelf [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1122/]
• 11. Diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of primary ciliary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4912005/]
• 12. Primary ciliary dyskinesia - Insights - Mayo Clinic Labs [https://news.mayocliniclabs.com/pathology/primary-ciliary-dyskinesia/]
• 13. Abstracts From the 2025 Health Care Systems Research ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12279304/]
• 14. Data processing techniques to improve data integration from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12126813/]
• 15. a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4819882/]
• 16. Thieme E-Journals - Pneumologie / Full Text [https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0043-111909]
• 17. ERS Task Force guideline for the diagnosis of primary ciliary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6054534/]
• 18. Prevalence of primary ciliary dyskinesia in consecutive ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/pr2016263]
• 19. Guidelines for the diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://www.waidid.org/publications/guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-of-primary-ciliary-dyskinesia]
• 20. a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26917608/]
• 21. Evaluation of a Clinical Index as a Predictive Tool for Primary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8232329/]
• 22. Clinical manifestations and genotype of primary... | Research Square [https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1613158/v1]
• 23. : a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary... - ePrints Soton PICADAR [https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/388805/]
• 24. : a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary... PICADAR [https://www.bohrium.com/paper-details/picadar-a-diagnostic-predictive-tool-for-primary-ciliary-dyskinesia/814552781883965442-10032]
• 25. (Open Access) PICADAR : a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary... [https://scispace.com/papers/picadar-a-diagnostic-predictive-tool-for-primary-ciliary-20joj660ld]
• 26. Assessment of primary ciliary dyskinesia predictive... | Semantic Scholar [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Assessment-of-primary-ciliary-dyskinesia-predictive-Palmas-Shanthikumar/bae8597e80000c61633eca104f63ed5f9a748df2]
• 27. Primary Immunodeficiency (PID) and ... [https://www.blueprintgenetics.com/tests/panels/immunology/primary-immunodeficiency-pid-and-primary-ciliary-dyskinesia-pcd-panel/]
• 28. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia: An Update on Clinical Aspects ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pediatrics/articles/10.3389/fped.2017.00135/full]
• 29. Diagnostic testing in people with primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10495017/]
• 30. Clinical and Genetic Characterization of Patients with Primary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10605387/]
• 31. Case Report: Primary ciliary dyskinesia due to CCNO ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pediatrics/articles/10.3389/fped.2024.1458660/full]
• 32. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Pipeline 2025 [https://www.barchart.com/story/news/35504799/primary-ciliary-dyskinesia-pipeline-2025-groundbreaking-clinical-advancements-by-4-global-leaders-delveinsight-featuring-parion-sciences-recode-therapeutics-translate-bio-santhera-pharmaceuti]
• 33. Primary ciliary dyskinesia - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12316531/]
• 34. Ultrastructure for the diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10461090/]
• 35. Evaluation of the Clinical and Genetic Characteristics ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39902670/]
• 36. Noncoding DNA Variants in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12618996/]
• 37. Non-Coding DNA Variants Increase the Genetic Diagnostic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40758541/]
• 38. Nasal Nitric Oxide Measurement and a Modified PICADAR ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28783864/]
• 39. Research - Cycle 3 2025 [https://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/announcement/improving-methods-conducting-patient-centered-comparative-clinical-effectiveness-research-pcori-funding-announcement-cycle-3-2025]
• 40. CRISPR Clinical Trials: A 2025 Update [https://innovativegenomics.org/news/crispr-clinical-trials-2025/]
• 41. Diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia. An Official American ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6006411/]
• 42. Clinical characteristics and genetic spectrum of 26 individuals ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8252271/]
• 43. Clinical spectrum of primary ciliary dyskinesia in childhood [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4737693/]
• 44. Primary ciliary dyskinesia: critical evaluation of clinical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4016480/]
• 45. Analysis of the clinical features of Japanese patients with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0385814621002248]
• 46. Investigating laterality defects in primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9186022/]
• 47. Accuracy of diagnostic testing in primary ciliary dyskinesia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4771621/]
• 48. Genetic Defects with Normal and Non-Diagnostic Ciliary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6047068/]
• 49. Quantitative Assessment of Ciliary Ultrastructure with the Use ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8394936/]
• 50. Ciliary Ultrastructure Assessed by Transmission Electron ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10670349/]
• 51. Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia [https://recodetx.com/pcd/]
• 52. Cost-effectiveness analysis of three algorithms for diagnosing ... [https://ojrd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13023-019-1116-3]
• 53. A Comprehensive Approach for the Diagnosis of Primary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8466881/]
• 54. Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.09.22.25336363v1.full-text]
• 55. Artificial intelligence in prenatal diagnosis: Down syndrome ... [https://tjoddergisi.org/articles/artificial-intelligence-in-prenatal-diagnosis-down-syndrome-risk-assessment-with-the-power-of-gradient-boosting-based-machine-learning-algorithms/tjod.galenos.2025.83278]
• 56. Synthetic data-driven AI approach for fetal chromosomal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12557104/]