Study Variation in Estimating GFR from Creatinine, Cystatin C, Age, and Sex

Background: The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations estimate GFR using serum creatinine and/or cystatin C, age, and sex. These equations were created by pooling datasets from multiple research studies and populations into a single dataset. We investigate implications of study variation on the relationship of GFR with its predictor variables in CKD-EPI datasets. Methods: We combined data used to develop and validate the 2021 CKD-EPI equations (11,737 individuals in 23 studies). For GFR equations based on creatinine or cystatin C, random effects modeling was used to partition measured GFR (mGFR) into five components: the average predictor-GFR relationship across studies, predictable variation due to differences in studies of CKD populations vs. non-CKD populations, non-predictable variation across studies, within-study prediction errors, and measurement error. Results: Overall, the average predictor-GFR relationship across studies did not substantially differ from the pooled 2021 CKD-EPI equations, which yield estimates intermediate between CKD and non-CKD populations. Still, considerable variation persisted beyond differences by CKD population (Figure). For lower creatinine/cystatin C levels, 50-70% of the GFR estimation error can be attributed to between-study differences, whereas 30-50% of the error is due to estimating GFR from predictor variables within a given study, after accounting for mGFR measurement error. For higher levels, 15-37% is due to between-study differences and 63-85% is due to within-study errors. Conclusion: Our results largely corroborate the CKD-EPI equations, which remain a pragmatic solution for widespread GFR estimation. Single study GFR equations may underestimate external prediction error by ignoring study level variability, especially in non-CKD populations. Funding: NIDDK SupportForest plot of CKD-EPI equation coefficients and population-averaged and study-specific coefficients from the random effects models for creatinine and cystatin C.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.2025rq1njzs1
Primary Topic
Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Study Variation in Estimating GFR from Creatinine, Cystatin C, Age, and Sex

Nora F. Fino
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
article

Study Variation in Estimating GFR from Creatinine, Cystatin C, Age, and Sex

Nora F. Fino
article en

Abstract

Background: The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations estimate GFR using serum creatinine and/or cystatin C, age, and sex. These equations were created by pooling datasets from multiple research studies and populations into a single dataset. We investigate implications of study variation on the relationship of GFR with its predictor variables in CKD-EPI datasets. Methods: We combined data used to develop and validate the 2021 CKD-EPI equations (11,737 individuals in 23 studies). For GFR equations based on creatinine or cystatin C, random effects modeling was used to partition measured GFR (mGFR) into five components: the average predictor-GFR relationship across studies, predictable variation due to differences in studies of CKD populations vs. non-CKD populations, non-predictable variation across studies, within-study prediction errors, and measurement error. Results: Overall, the average predictor-GFR relationship across studies did not substantially differ from the pooled 2021 CKD-EPI equations, which yield estimates intermediate between CKD and non-CKD populations. Still, considerable variation persisted beyond differences by CKD population (Figure). For lower creatinine/cystatin C levels, 50-70% of the GFR estimation error can be attributed to between-study differences, whereas 30-50% of the error is due to estimating GFR from predictor variables within a given study, after accounting for mGFR measurement error. For higher levels, 15-37% is due to between-study differences and 63-85% is due to within-study errors. Conclusion: Our results largely corroborate the CKD-EPI equations, which remain a pragmatic solution for widespread GFR estimation. Single study GFR equations may underestimate external prediction error by ignoring study level variability, especially in non-CKD populations. Funding: NIDDK SupportForest plot of CKD-EPI equation coefficients and population-averaged and study-specific coefficients from the random effects models for creatinine and cystatin C.

Journal of the American Society of NephrologyVol. 36(10S)
University of Utah (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 54%
Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Study Variation in Estimating GFR from Creatinine, Cystatin C, Age, and Sex — Nora F. Fino · Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS