In the United States, the incidence of osteogenesis imperfecta is estimated to be one per 20,000 live births. An estimated 20,000 to 50,000 people are affected by OI in the United States. The most common types are I, II, III, and IV, while the rest are very rare. Type I is the most common and has been reported to be around three times more common than type II. The prevalence of types III and IV is less certain. In a 1989 study in Denmark, type I was found to comprise 71% of cases and type II 12% of cases, with other types comprising the other 17%. In a 2015 study in Sweden, type I was nearly six times more common than type III and nearly four times more common than type IV. Most people with OI receive it from a parent, but in many cases, it is a brand new (de novo or "sporadic") mutation in a family. Among a study of patients with survivable types of OI, OI type III is most often de novo (85%), followed by type IV (50%) and type I (34%). Some populations can have a higher incidence of OI than would be otherwise expected if they have a larger than average number of carriers of the recessive forms of the disease. History The condition, or types of it, has had various other names over the years and in different nations; "osteogenesis imperfecta" has, however, been the most widely accepted name for the condition since the late 20th century. Among some of the most common alternatives are "fragilitas ossium"; "Ekman–Lobstein syndrome", and "Vrolik syndrome", both eponyms; and, the colloquialism, "brittle bone disease". Earliest recorded cases OI has been identified in an ancient Egyptian infant mummified in around 1000 BC, originally dismissed by archaeologists as containing the remains of a monkey. The Norse king Ivar the Boneless, who lived , is speculated to have had OI as well. Nicolas de Malebranche is oft credited as being the first person to describe the physical characteristics of OI in his 1688 book , in which he describes a man who has had his "bones broken in the places a murderer's would be" all his life. His confident description of the pathology of the disorder, however, which creates what he termed «» ("monstrous children"), is scientifically void—he wrote that it was due to the mother's antepartum viewership of a