Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31104070›Full record

ArticleJAMA2019

Derivation, Validation, and Potential Treatment Implications of Novel Clinical Phenotypes for Sepsis.

Christopher W Seymour, Jason N Kennedy, Shu Wang, Chung-Chou H Chang, Corrine F Elliott, Zhongying Xu, Scott Berry, Gilles Clermont, Gregory Cooper, Hernando Gomez and 12 more

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 862 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
862citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
100.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04693923 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Capillary Refill Time Response to a Rapid Fluid Challenge in Septic Shock Patients: Pathophysiological Determinants, and Relation to Changes in Systemic, Regional and Microcirculatory Blood Flow

TypeinterventionalSponsorPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileRan2021 to 2023Enrolled42ConditionsSeptic ShockArmsFluid challenge
NCT05108896 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Aspiration in Acute Respiratory Failure Survivors

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Colorado, DenverRan2021 to 2025Enrolled855ConditionsDysphagia, AspirationArms3-Screenings Protocol, FEES, Tracheal Ultrasound
NCT05311046 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Biomarker-enhanced Artificial Intelligence Based Pediatric Sepsis Screening Tool Towards Early Recognition and Personalized Therapeutics

TypeobservationalSponsorComputer Technology Associates, Inc.Ran2026 to 2029Enrolled12,961ConditionsSepsisArmsPediatric sepsis screening tool (either algorithmic or manual)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

862 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,416 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Machine learning-derived clinical phenotypes of ascites in cirrhosis: A multi-center latent class analysis with external validation.Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Personalized sepsis therapy and modern trial designs].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Interpreting Glycopeptide Escalation and Acute Kidney Injury with CautionTurkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

802 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Christopher W SeymourDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jason N KennedyDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Shu WangDepartment of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Chung-Chou H ChangClinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Corrine F ElliottBerry Consultants, Austin, Texas.
Zhongying XuDepartment of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Scott BerryBerry Consultants, Austin, Texas.
Gilles ClermontDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Gregory CooperDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Hernando GomezDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
David T HuangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
John A KellumDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Qi MiDepartment of Sports Medicine and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Steven M OpalDepartment of Medicine, Infectious Disease Division, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.
Victor TalisaDepartment of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Tom van der PollCenter of Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Shyam VisweswaranDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Yoram VodovotzDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jeremy C WeissMachine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Donald M YealyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Sachin YendeDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Derek C AngusDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
University of Pittsburgh · USBerry & Associates (United States) · USCarnegie Mellon University · USProvidence College · USUniversity of Amsterdam · NLVA Pittsburgh Healthcare System · US

Funding

Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS)P50GM076659 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI ANGUS, DEREK C · 2006 to 2012
$11.2M
Genetic And Inflammatory Markers Of SepsisR01GM061992 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI ANGUS, DEREK C · 2001 to 2004
$6.0M
Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT)R01GM101197 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI HUANG, DAVID TOM · 2013 to 2017
$5.0M
Sepsis subtypes: biology, treatment, and bedside applicationR35GM119519 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Christopher W. Seymour · 2016 to 2026
$4.9M
Development and Evaluation of a Learning Electronic Medical Record SystemR01LM012095 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI VISWESWARAN, SHYAM · 2015 to 2018
$1.8M
Model-Based Decisions in SepsisR01GM105728 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI CLERMONT, GILLES · 2014 to 2017
$1.1M
A Biohybrid Device for Regulating Inflammation in SepsisR01GM107231 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI GERLACH, JOERG C., VODOVOTZ, YORAM · 2015 to 2017
$1.0M
The role of energy regulation in the epithelial cell response to sepsis and the origin of multiple organ dysfuntionK08GM117310 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI GOMEZ DANIES, HERNANDO · 2016 to 2018
$560k
ProACT Planning GrantR34GM102696 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI HUANG, DAVID TOM · 2013 to 2013
$153k
NIGMS NIH HHS K08 GM117310NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM076659NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM061992NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM101197NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM105728NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM107231NIGMS NIH HHS R34 GM102696NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM119519NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome. Identification of distinct clinical phenotypes may allow more precise therapy and improve care. Objective: To derive sepsis phenotypes from clinical data, determine their reproducibility and correlation with host-response biomarkers and clinical outcomes, and assess the potential causal relationship with results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design, Settings, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of data sets using statistical, machine learning, and simulation tools. Phenotypes were derived among 20 189 total patients (16 552 unique patients) who met Sepsis-3 criteria within 6 hours of hospital presentation at 12 Pennsylvania hospitals (2010-2012) using consensus k means clustering applied to 29 variables. Reproducibility and correlation with biological parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed in a second database (2013-2014; n = 43 086 total patients and n = 31 160 unique patients), in a prospective cohort study of sepsis due to pneumonia (n = 583), and in 3 sepsis RCTs (n = 4737). Exposures: All clinical and laboratory variables in the electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: Derived phenotype (α, β, γ, and δ) frequency, host-response biomarkers, 28-day and 365-day mortality, and RCT simulation outputs. Results: The derivation cohort included 20 189 patients with sepsis (mean age, 64 [SD, 17] years; 10 022 [50%] male; mean maximum 24-hour Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, 3.9 [SD, 2.4]). The validation cohort included 43 086 patients (mean age, 67 [SD, 17] years; 21 993 [51%] male; mean maximum 24-hour SOFA score, 3.6 [SD, 2.0]). Of the 4 derived phenotypes, the α phenotype was the most common (n = 6625; 33%) and included patients with the lowest administration of a vasopressor; in the β phenotype (n = 5512; 27%), patients were older and had more chronic illness and renal dysfunction; in the γ phenotype (n = 5385; 27%), patients had more inflammation and pulmonary dysfunction; and in the δ phenotype (n = 2667; 13%), patients had more liver dysfunction and septic shock. Phenotype distributions were similar in the validation cohort. There were consistent differences in biomarker patterns by phenotype. In the derivation cohort, cumulative 28-day mortality was 287 deaths of 5691 unique patients (5%) for the α phenotype; 561 of 4420 (13%) for the β phenotype; 1031 of 4318 (24%) for the γ phenotype; and 897 of 2223 (40%) for the δ phenotype. Across all cohorts and trials, 28-day and 365-day mortality were highest among the δ phenotype vs the other 3 phenotypes (P < .001). In simulation models, the proportion of RCTs reporting benefit, harm, or no effect changed considerably (eg, varying the phenotype frequencies within an RCT of early goal-directed therapy changed the results from >33% chance of benefit to >60% chance of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of data sets from patients with sepsis, 4 clinical phenotypes were identified that correlated with host-response patterns and clinical outcomes, and simulations suggested these phenotypes may help in understanding heterogeneity of treatment effects. Further research is needed to determine the utility of these phenotypes in clinical care and for informing trial design and interpretation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiomarkersCluster AnalysisDatasets as TopicHospital MortalityHumansMachine LearningOrgan Dysfunction ScoresPhenotypeReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSepsisBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID31104070
PMCPMC6537818
OpenAlexW2944988359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.