MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405530205 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.103013

Identifying biomarker-driven subphenotypes of cardiogenic shock: analysis of prospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials

2024· article· en· W4405530205 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sabri Soussi, Tuukka Tarvasmäki, Antoine Kimmoun, Mojtaba Ahmadiankalati, Fériel Azibani, Claúdia C. dos Santos, Kévin Duarte, Étienne Gayat, Jacob C. Jentzer, Veli‐Pekka Harjola, Benjamin Hibbert, Christian Jung, Bruno Lévy, Zihang Lu, Patrick R. Lawler, John C. Marshall, Janine Pöss, Malha Sadoune, Alexis Nguyen, Alexandre Raynor, Katell Peoc’h, Holger Thiele, Rebecca Mathew, Alexandre Mebazaa

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of OttawaSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's UniversityCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSydäntutkimussäätiöUniversity of TorontoAarne Koskelon SäätiöInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleDirection de l’hospitalisation et de l’offre de SoinsEuropean CommissionSeventh Framework ProgrammeFoundation for Cardiovascular Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialBiomarkerInternal medicineCardiogenic shockMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome, making it challenging to predict patient trajectory and response to treatment. This study aims to identify biological/molecular CS subphenotypes, evaluate their association with outcome, and explore their impact on heterogeneity of treatment effect (ShockCO-OP, NCT06376318). Methods We used unsupervised clustering to integrate plasma biomarker data from two prospective cohorts of CS patients: CardShock (N = 205 [2010–2012, NCT01374867]) and the French and European Outcome reGistry in Intensive Care Units (FROG-ICU) (N = 228 [2011–2013, NCT01367093]) to determine the optimal number of classes. Thereafter, a simplified classifier (Euclidean distances) was used to assign the identified CS subphenotypes in three completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (OptimaCC, N = 57 [2011–2016, NCT01367743]; DOREMI, N = 192 [2017–2020, NCT03207165]; and CULPRIT-SHOCK, N = 434 [2013–2017, NCT01927549]) and explore heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to 28-day mortality (primary outcome). Findings Four biomarker-driven CS subphenotypes (‘adaptive', ‘non-inflammatory', ‘cardiopathic', and ‘inflammatory') were identified separately in the two cohorts. Patients in the inflammatory and cardiopathic subphenotypes had the highest 28-day mortality (p (log-rank test) = 0.0099 and 0.0055 in the CardShock and FROG-ICU cohorts, respectively). Subphenotype membership significantly improved risk stratification when added to traditional risk factors including the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock stages (increase in Harrell's C-index by 4% ( p = 0.033) and 6% ( p = 0.0068) respectively in the CardShock and the FROG-ICU cohorts). The simplified classifier identified CS subphenotypes with similar biological/molecular and outcome characteristics in the three independent RCTs. No significant interaction was observed between treatment effect and subphenotypes. Interpretation Subphenotypes with the highest concentration of biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction and inflammation (inflammatory) or myocardial injury/fibrosis (cardiopathic) were associated with mortality independently from the SCAI shock stages. Funding Dr Sabri Soussi was awarded the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Doctoral Foreign Study Award (DFSA) and the Merit Awards Program (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada) for the current study.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207