ArticleEBioMedicine2015
Prospective Testing and Redesign of a Temporal Biomarker Based Risk Model for Patients With Septic Shock: Implications for Septic Shock Biology.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential biomarkers used for risk estimation of pediatric sepsis-associated organ dysfunction and immune dysregulation.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- Presepsin: Hope in the Quest for the Holy Grail.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
- Sepsis Biomarkers.Journal of pediatric intensive care · 2019Review
- A Two-Biomarker Model Predicts Mortality in the Critically Ill with Sepsis.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017Article
- Improved Risk Stratification in Pediatric Septic Shock Using Both Protein and mRNA Biomarkers. PERSEVERE-XP.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017Observational
- Olfactomedin-4 Is a Candidate Marker for a Pathogenic Neutrophil Subset in Septic Shock.Critical care medicine · 2017Article
- Emerging infection and sepsis biomarkers: will they change current therapies?Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The temporal version of the pediatric sepsis biomarker risk model (tPERSEVERE) estimates the risk of a complicated course in children with septic shock based on biomarker changes from days 1 to 3 of septic shock. We validated tPERSEVERE performance in a prospective cohort, with an a priori plan to redesign tPERSEVERE if it did not perform well. Biomarkers were measured in the validation cohort (n = 168) and study subjects were classified according to tPERSEVERE. To redesign tPERSEVERE, the validation cohort and the original derivation cohort (n = 299) were combined and randomly allocated to training (n = 374) and test (n = 93) sets. tPERSEVERE was redesigned using the training set and CART methodology. tPERSEVERE performed poorly in the validation cohort, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58-0.75). Failure analysis revealed potential confounders related to clinical characteristics. The redesigned tPERSEVERE model had an AUC of 0.83 (0.79-0.87) and a sensitivity of 93% (68-97) for estimating the risk of a complicated course. Similar performance was seen in the test set. The classification tree segregated patients into two broad endotypes of septic shock characterized by either excessive inflammation or immune suppression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.