ArticleScientific reports2026
Prognostic significance of the endothelial activation and stress index in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Association of the Endothelial Activation and Stress Index (EASIX) with Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Pneumosepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Endothelial cells play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The Endothelial Activation and Stress Index (EASIX) is regarded as a reliable biomarker of endothelial dysfunction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of baseline and dynamic EASIX trajectories in ARDS patients. The data of this study were sourced from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) 2.2 database. The study population was divided into three groups according to the tertiles of the EASIX index. The primary outcome was 28-day ICU mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, multivariate Cox regression, and restricted cubic spline (RCS) were used to assess the correlation between the baseline EASIX and mortality. Furthermore, Latent Class Mixed Models (LCMM) were employed to identify dynamic EASIX trajectories within the first 72 h. The association between these identified trajectories and clinical prognosis was subsequently evaluated. Finally, the Boruta algorithm was applied to screen for key predictive features, and seven machine learning (ML) algorithms were developed to predict 28-day mortality. According to the established inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1044 ARDS patients were ultimately included in this study. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that patients in the high baseline EASIX group had higher 28-day mortality. Multivariate Cox regression revealed that higher EASIX was associated with increased 28-day mortality (HR = 1.07; 95% CI 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03) and remained significant at 60 and 180 days. The RCS curves indicated a linear relationship (P-non-linear > 0.05). In the dynamic analysis, LCMM identified three distinct trajectories: Trajectory 1 (Persistently Low), Trajectory 2 (Persistently Increasing), and Trajectory 3 (Rise-and-Fall). Notably, Trajectory 2 exhibited the poorest prognosis (HR = 7.56; 95% CI 3.45-16.57,P < 0.001). Feature selection via Boruta algorithm consistently identified EASIX as a key predictor. Among the seven ML models evaluated, the Random Forest algorithm demonstrated superior performance, achieving an AUC of 0.826. Both baseline EASIX and dynamic EASIX trajectories are independent predictors of mortality in ARDS patients, suggesting that EASIX has great potential as a reliable prognostic indicator for ARDS 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.