Causal inference can lead us to modifiable mechanisms and informative archetypes in sepsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical progress is reflected in the advance from broad clinical syndromes to mechanistically coherent diagnoses. By this metric, research in sepsis is far behind other areas of medicine-the word itself conflates multiple different disease mechanisms, whilst excluding noninfectious syndromes (e.g., trauma, pancreatitis) with similar pathogenesis. New technologies, both for deep phenotyping and data analysis, offer the capability to define biological states with extreme depth. Progress is limited by a fundamental problem: observed groupings of patients lacking shared causal mechanisms are very poor predictors of response to treatment. Here, we discuss concrete steps to identify groups of patients reflecting archetypes of disease with shared underlying mechanisms of pathogenesis. Recent evidence demonstrates the role of causal inference from host genetics and randomised clinical trials to inform stratification analyses. Genetic studies can directly illuminate drug targets, but in addition they create a reservoir of statistical power that can be divided many times among potential patient subgroups to test for mechanistic coherence, accelerating discovery of modifiable mechanisms for testing in trials. Novel approaches, such as subgroup identification in-flight in clinical trials, will improve efficiency. Within the next decade, we expect ongoing large-scale collaborative projects to discover and test therapeutically relevant sepsis archetypes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".