Pediatric Sepsis Endotypes Among Adults With Sepsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent transcriptomic studies describe two subgroups of adults with sepsis differentiated by a sepsis response signature. The implied biology and related clinical associations are comparable with recently reported pediatric sepsis endotypes, labeled "A" and "B." We classified adults with sepsis using the pediatric endotyping strategy and the sepsis response signature and determined how endotype assignment, sepsis response signature membership, and age interact with respect to mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of publically available transcriptomic data representing critically ill adults with sepsis from which the sepsis response signature groups were derived and validated. SETTING: Multiple ICUs. PATIENTS: Adults with sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Transcriptomic data were conormalized into a single dataset yielding 549 unique cases with sepsis response signature assignments. Each subject was assigned to endotype A or B using the expression data for the 100 endotyping genes. There were 163 subjects (30%) assigned to endotype A and 386 to endotype B. There was a weak, positive correlation between endotype assignment and sepsis response signature membership. Mortality rates were similar between patients assigned endotype A and those assigned endotype B. A multivariable logistic regression model fit to endotype assignment, sepsis response signature membership, age, and the respective two-way interactions revealed that endotype A, sepsis response signature 1 membership, older age, and the interactions between them were associated with mortality. Subjects coassigned to endotype A, and sepsis response signature 1 had the highest mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the pediatric endotyping strategy with sepsis response signature membership might provide complementary, age-dependent, biological, and prognostic information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".