Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR AI

Date Submitted: Mar 17, 2025
Date Accepted: Sep 20, 2025
Date Submitted to PubMed: Sep 21, 2025

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Examining Transparency in Kidney Transplant Recipient Selection Criteria: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study

Rivera B, Canizares S, Cojuc-Konigsberg G, Holub O, Nakonechnyi A, Chumdermpadetsuk RR, Ladin K, Eckhoff DE, Allen R, Pawar A

Examining Transparency in Kidney Transplant Recipient Selection Criteria: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study

JMIR AI 2025;4:e74066

DOI: 10.2196/74066

PMID: 40976641

PMCID: 12627972

Transparency in Kidney Transplant Recipient Selection Criteria: A Nationwide Analysis Using AI

  • Belen Rivera; 
  • Stalin Canizares; 
  • Gabriel Cojuc-Konigsberg; 
  • Olena Holub; 
  • Alex Nakonechnyi; 
  • Ritah R. Chumdermpadetsuk; 
  • Keren Ladin; 
  • Devin E. Eckhoff; 
  • Rebecca Allen; 
  • Aditya Pawar

ABSTRACT

Background:

Choosing a transplant program impacts a patient’s likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant. Most patients are unaware of the factors influencing their candidacy. As patients increasingly rely on online resources for healthcare decisions, this study quantifies the available online patient-level information on kidney transplant recipient (KTR) selection criteria across U.S. transplant centers.

Objective:

Quantify the available online patient-level information on kidney transplant recipient (KTR) selection criteria across U.S. transplant centers.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study using natural language processing and a large language model was conducted to review the U.S. kidney transplant centers websites from June to August 2024. Links were explored up to three levels deep, and information on 31 guideline-recommended selection criteria was collected from each transplant center.

Results:

A total of 255 U.S. kidney transplant centers were analyzed, comprising 10,508 webpages and 9,113,753 words. Among the kidney transplant guideline-recommended selection criteria, only 2.6% of the information was present on the transplant centers webpages. Socioeconomic and behavioral criteria mentioned more than those related to patient medical conditions and comorbidities. Of the 31 criteria, finances and health insurance was the most frequently mentioned, appearing in 25.5% of the transplant centers. Other socioeconomic and behavioral criteria such as family and social support systems, adherence, and psychosocial assessment, were addressed in less than 4%. No information was found in any webpage for 14 of the criteria. Geographically, disparities in reporting were observed, with the South Atlantic division showing the highest number of distinct criteria, while New England had the fewest.

Conclusions:

Most online patient-level KTR selection criteria are unavailable. The lack of transparency in the pre-waitlist process involving KTR selection criteria may limit patients from choosing their most suitable transplant center and successfully receiving a kidney transplant.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Rivera B, Canizares S, Cojuc-Konigsberg G, Holub O, Nakonechnyi A, Chumdermpadetsuk RR, Ladin K, Eckhoff DE, Allen R, Pawar A

Examining Transparency in Kidney Transplant Recipient Selection Criteria: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study

JMIR AI 2025;4:e74066

DOI: 10.2196/74066

PMID: 40976641

PMCID: 12627972

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.