ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Phenotyping cardiogenic shock: an insight from the gulf cardiogenic shock registry.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition characterized by clinical heterogeneity and high mortality. A "one-size-fits-all" approach to management may be suboptimal. We aimed to identify distinct clinical phenotypes of CS using an unsupervised machine learning approach and to characterize their associated mortality and SCAI stages. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1,513 patients with CS from the Gulf registry. An unsupervised machine learning methodology was employed, using agglomerative hierarchical clustering on seven key continuous variables (Age, Ejection Fraction, Mean Arterial Pressure, Lactate, pH, Creatinine, and Alanine Transaminase) to identify patient subgroups. The optimal number of clusters was determined using a combination of quantitative metrics and clinical interpretability. The identified phenotypes were then validated against external outcomes, including in-hospital mortality and SCAI Shock Stage. Results: Four distinct clinical phenotypes were identified. Phenotype 1 ("Compensated Low-Risk," Conclusion: In a large, contemporary registry of CS patients, an unsupervised machine learning approach successfully identified four distinct and prognostically significant phenotypes. These data-driven phenotypes, characterized by unique clinical and biomarker profiles, provide a novel framework for risk stratification that moves beyond traditional classification systems and may facilitate the development of personalized therapeutic strategies for cardiogenic shock.
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.