Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39905513›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025

Clinical subtypes in critically ill patients with sepsis: validation and parsimonious classifier model development.

Rombout B E van Amstel, Emma Rademaker, Jason N Kennedy, Lieuwe D J Bos, Hessel Peters-Sengers, Joe M Butler, Niklas Bruse, Dave A Dongelmans, Matthijs Kox, Alexander P J Vlaar and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Clinical subtypes and prognosis of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Rombout B E van AmstelDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.b.vanamstel@amsterdamumc.nl.
Emma RademakerDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jason N KennedyDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Lieuwe D J BosDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hessel Peters-SengersCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joe M ButlerCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Niklas BruseDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Dave A DongelmansDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Matthijs KoxDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Alexander P J VlaarDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tom van der PollCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Olaf L CremerDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Christopher W Seymour *Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Lonneke A van Vught *Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Sepsis subtypes: biology, treatment, and bedside applicationR35GM119519 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Christopher W. Seymour · 2016 to 2026
$4.9M
Center for Translational Molecular Medicine 04I-201NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM119519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of sepsis subtypes to enhance personalized medicine in critically ill patients is hindered by the lack of validation across diverse cohorts and the absence of a simple classification model. We aimed to validate the previously identified SENECA clinical sepsis subtypes in multiple large ICU cohorts, and to develop parsimonious classifier models for δ-type adjudication in clinical practice.

methodsData from four cohorts between 2008 and 2023 were used to assign α, β, γ and δ-type in patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria using clinical variables: (I) The Molecular diAgnosis and Risk stratification of Sepsis (MARS, n = 2449), (II) a contemporary continuation of the MARS study (MARS2, n = 2445) (III) the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation registry (NICE, n = 28,621) and (IV) the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care including (MIMIC-IV, n = 18,661). K-means clustering using clinical variables was conducted to assess the optimal number of classes and compared to the SENECA subtypes. Parsimonious models were built in the SENECA derivation cohort to predict subtype membership using logistic regression, and validated in MARS and MIMIC-IV.

resultsAmong 52.226 patients with sepsis, the subtype distribution in MARS, MARS2 and NICE was 2-6% for the α-type, 1-5% for the β-type, 49-65% for the γ-type and 26-48% for the δ-type compared to 33%, 27%, 27% and 13% in the original SENECA derivation cohort, whereas subtype distribution in MIMIC-IV was more similar at 25%, 24%, 27% and 25%, respectively. In-hospital mortality rates were significantly different between the four cohorts for α, γ and δ-type (p < 0.001). Method-based validation showed moderate overlap with the original subtypes in both MARS and MIMIC-IV. A parsimonious model for all four subtypes had moderate to low accuracy (accuracy 62.2%), while a parsimonious classifier model with 3 variables (aspartate aminotransferase, serum lactate, and bicarbonate) had excellent accuracy in predicting the δ-type patients from all other types in the derivation cohort and moderate accuracy in the validation cohorts (MARS: area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) 0.93, 95% CI [0.92-0.94], accuracy 85.5% [84.0-86.8%]; MIMIC-IV: AUC 0.86 [0.85-0.87], accuracy 82.9% [82.4-83.4%]).

conclusionsThe distribution and mortality rates of clinical sepsis subtypes varied between US and European cohorts. A three-variable model could accurately identify the δ-type sepsis patients.

Indexed as

SepsisAgedCohort StudiesCritical IllnessFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsRegistriesRisk AssessmentROC CurveCritical illnessMachine learningPhenotypePrecision medicineSepsis

Identifiers

PMID39905513
PMCPMC11796029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.