ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Clinical subtypes in critically ill patients with sepsis: validation and parsimonious classifier model development.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- From early recognition to precision medicine: advances in the diagnosis and management of adult sepsis and septic shock-a narrative review.Infection · 2026Review
- Deciphering sepsis molecular subtypes using large-scale data to identify subtype-specific drug repurposing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Physiological Phenotypes in Comatose ICU Patients: A Retrospective Multidimensional Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical subtypes and prognosis of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Article
- Clinical subphenotypes in septic patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation: validation and parsimonious classifier model development.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Service-Specific Heterogeneity in Sepsis Variable Significance and Machine Learning Model Performance: A Stratified Analysis of the BIAlert Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The Sepsis ImmunoScore Predicts Sepsis, Mortality, and Deterioration Better than Clinical Scores and Widely Available Biomarkers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence- and Machine Learning-Assisted Subphenotyping for Personalized Immunotherapy in Sepsis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical subphenotypes and molecular endotypes in sepsis: toward an integrated and dynamic framework.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- Mesenchymal stem cell - derived extracellular vesicles modulate immune function in sepsis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Identification of Clinical Subtypes of Surgical Sepsis in Critically Ill Patients Based on K-Means Clustering and Development of Parsimonious Classifier Model for High-Risk Subtype.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- Beyond antimicrobials: a host-directed precision pharmacotherapy framework for septic shock.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Subphenotyping sepsis based on organ interaction trajectory using a deep temporal graph clustering model: a retrospective cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Deriving consensus sepsis clusters via goal-directed subgroup identification in multi-omics study.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Treatment effects of Xuebijing injection in patients with sepsis by clinical phenotype: a post hoc analysis of the EXIT-SEP trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Unsupervised Machine Learning in Identification of Septic Shock Phenotypes and Their In-Hospital Outcomes: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Targeting serum phosphate trajectory stratification to improve outcomes in high-risk Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic-Sepsis cohorts.PloS one · 2025Article
- IL-10 to lymphocyte ratio (ILR) and lactate in the prognosis prediction and risk stratification of sepsis: a pilot study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
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
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.