ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2025
The focal index: a quantitative approach to morphological sub-phenotyping of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pilot study.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing heterogeneity and subphenotyping acute respiratory distress syndrome with computed tomography.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Review
- Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Physiologic Rationale and Phenotype-Based Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Clinical Phenotyping in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Steps Towards Personalized Medicine.Journal of clinical 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterised by significant morphological heterogeneity. Morphological sub-phenotyping can potentially be used to personalise mechanical ventilation. Current methods to classify lung injury as focal or diffuse rely on subjective image interpretation, which risks misclassification and suboptimal treatment. This study aimed to investigate the morphological appearance features of lung injury objectively. The focal index, an objective quantitative tool, was introduced to assess focality in lung injury.
methodsIn this single-centre retrospective study, we included lung computed tomography (CT) scans from COVID-19 ARDS patients on invasive mechanical ventilation, classified as diffuse lung injury. CT data were analysed to extract regional Hounsfield Unit (HU) profiles across nine predefined lung areas. The focal index was derived by quantifying the non-overlapping area under HU distribution curves between the apical ventral and diaphragmatic dorsal regions. Correlations with lung weight, gas volume, and ventilatory settings were assessed. For validation, at least two experienced ICU consultants assessed the same images and determined whether ARDS was of a diffuse or focal type. The experts classified 36 out of 37 patients as diffuse ARDS, with substantial interobserver agreement (k = 0.65, 95% CI 0.02-1.00).
resultsThe focal index demonstrated a wide range (25-175; mean 95.5 ± standard deviation 42.8), correlating significantly with the dorsal diaphragmatic non-aerated area (r = 0.67, p < 0.01) and with total gas volume (r = - 0.36, p = 0.03). There was no significant influence of ventilatory settings on the focal index.
conclusionsThe analysis suggested diffuse lung injury includes a spectrum of focality rather than a binary classification. The focal index provides an objective method to quantify the focality of lung injury in ARDS. Further studies are needed to validate the focal index across diverse ARDS aetiologies and establish its clinical application threshold for guiding personalised ventilation strategies.
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.