ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Prognostic discrimination of SOFA-2 vs. SOFA-1 and incremental information from cardiovascular scoring and vasoactive support intensity in patients with sepsis receiving early vasoactive therapy.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with sepsis who require vasoactive support during the first 24 h of intensive care represent a heterogeneous population. It is uncertain whether the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)-2 score improves mortality discrimination compared with the SOFA-1 score and whether observed circulatory support intensity provides complementary prognostic information. Methods: This multicohort observational study used Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) for a 24-h conditional landmark analysis. Patients alive and still in the ICU beyond 24 h were followed from ICU admission +24 h through ICU day 28 for reconstructed all-cause mortality. We compared SOFA-1 and SOFA-2, evaluated SOFA-2 total and cardiovascular scores, analyzed first-24-h five-agent norepinephrine-equivalent peak burden (norepinephrine, epinephrine, dopamine, phenylephrine, and vasopressin), and internally evaluated an exploratory drug-composition model. Fixed strata were assessed directionally in eICU Collaborative Research Database and an independent-center high-risk stress test cohort with cohort-specific endpoints. Results: The MIMIC-IV 24-h landmark cohort included 11,892 patients and 2,687 post-landmark deaths. SOFA-2 showed no observed discrimination advantage over SOFA-1 (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUROC, 0.731 vs. 0.732; difference, -0.0005; 95% confidence interval, -0.0086 to 0.0076; Conclusion: SOFA-2 did not show an observed overall mortality discrimination advantage over SOFA-1 in this population. SOFA-2 total and cardiovascular scores, together with observed vasoactive support intensity, provided complementary prognostic description at 24 h. The ≥12 rule is exploratory, and drug-related associations do not establish causal treatment effects or clinical decision utility.
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.