ArticleCritical care (London, England)2026
Decoding candidemia in critically ill patients: unsupervised clustering identifies three unique phenotypes.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "Decoding candidemia in critically ill patients: unsupervised clustering identifies three unique phenotypes": algorithmic tautology and feature selection bias.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCandidemia displays significant clinical heterogeneity in critically ill patients. This study aimed to identify distinct clinical phenotypes and to assess their association with 90-day mortality.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 492 intensive care unit (ICU) patients with candidemia from 16 French ICUs (2015-2023). We performed a factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD) incorporating both categorical and continuous baseline variables, followed by hierarchical clustering on principal components (HCPC). Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsOverall, 90-day mortality for the 492 patients (median age: 64 years, 69.1% male) with candidemia was 62.6%. Three different phenotypes emerged from FAMD followed by HCPC: Phenotype 1 (n = 70, 14.2%) comprised patients with severe immunosuppression, mostly due to hematological malignancies (82.9%), and high severity scores (SAPS II:70); Phenotype 2 (n = 223, 45.3%) corresponded to elderly cirrhotic patients (19.3%) with early-onset digestive candidemia; Phenotype 3 (n = 199, 40.5%) comprised younger patients with lower severity scores and catheter-related candidemia. Mortality differed significantly between phenotypes: 72.9% (Phenotype 1), 70.4% (Phenotype 2), and 50.3% (Phenotype 3) (p < 0.001). Independent predictors of mortality included age (aHR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02; p = 0.003), cirrhosis (aHR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.39-2.60; p < 0.001), SAPS II (aHR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02; p < 0.001), echinocandin use (aHR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39-0.63; p < 0.001) and proven catheter-related candidemia (protective; aHR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.33-0.69; p < 0.001). Immunodepression was not associated with mortality.
conclusionUnsupervised clustering identified three clinically different candidemia phenotypes with different outcomes. Cirrhosis, higher age and illness severity were associated with mortality, whereas a catheter-related source of infection was protective.
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.