MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413768385 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(25)00222-0

The potential of kidney transplantation to reduce mortality from chronic kidney disease: a global, cross-sectional, modelling study

2025· article· en· W4413768385 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Zambeli-Ljepović, Somkanya Tungsanga, Anukul Ghimire, Aminu K. Bello, Ikechi G. Okpechi, Mekdim Siyoum, Fransia Arda Mushi, Frank Asiimwe, Peace Bagasha, Vincent Okungu, Stefano Bertozzi, Thomas J. Hoffmann, David Thomson, Elmi Muller, John W. Scott, Shareef Syed, Nancy Ascher, Peter G. Stock, John K. Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of California, San FranciscoNational Institutes of HealthInstitut Sukan NegaraInstitute for Health Metrics and EvaluationInternational Society of Nephrology
KeywordsCross-sectional studyMedicineKidney diseaseKidney transplantationIntensive care medicineTransplantationEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Globally, the burden of chronic kidney disease and ensuing need for kidney replacement therapy (KRT)-dialysis or kidney transplantation-are increasing. Despite the mortality benefit of transplantation over dialysis, dialysis services are expanding more rapidly than access to transplantation. We aimed to cross-sectionally assess the association between country-level KRT rates and chronic kidney disease mortality to facilitate evidence-based prioritisation of KRT modalities. METHODS: For all countries with publicly available data, we collected income level and gross domestic product per capita (GDP-PC) from the World Bank (data from 2022), age-standardised chronic kidney disease prevalence and mortality from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD; data from 2021), and dialysis prevalence and kidney transplantation incidence from the International Society of Nephrology-Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA) and Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation (data from 2022). To account for varying chronic kidney disease prevalence among countries, we divided each of the latter three variables by the chronic kidney disease prevalence to obtain national dialysis rates, kidney transplantation rates, and the mortality-prevalence ratio, respectively. We modelled mortality-prevalence ratio as a multivariable function of GDP-PC and KRT rates. We used this model to estimate how increased kidney transplantation rates might affect chronic kidney disease mortality. FINDINGS: Among 203 countries and territories with epidemiological data available from both the GBD and ISN-GKHA, median age-standardised chronic kidney disease prevalence was 7·78% (IQR 6·54-9·48%). Data availability was associated with income level (p<0·0001). Higher GDP-PC was associated with higher KRT rates (p<0·0001 for both dialysis and kidney transplantation) and lower mortality-prevalence ratio (p<0·0001). On multivariable analysis, decreases in mortality-prevalence ratio were independently associated with GDP-PC (coefficient -0·258; 95% CI -0·413 to -0·103; p=0·0031) and kidney transplantation rates (-574; -1090 to -43·5; p=0·039), but not dialysis rates (10·8; -29·5 to -6·27; p=0·22). Conservative increases in kidney transplantation rates could avert 290 000 chronic kidney disease deaths annually. INTERPRETATION: We provide, to our knowledge, the first compilation of evidence that countries with higher kidney transplantation rates have lower mortality-prevalence ratio, regardless of GDP-PC; dialysis does not have a similar association. GDP-PC-based disparities in data availability, kidney transplantation rates, and mortality-prevalence ratio are expected to worsen with anticipated increases in prevalence of chronic kidney disease. To mitigate this risk, policy makers should leverage international guidelines and partnerships to increase access to safe and ethical transplantation. FUNDING: None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207