MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407834788 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000003664

The 2024 Phoenix Sepsis Score Criteria: Part 1, the Evolution in Definition of Sepsis and Septic Shock

2025· article· en· W4407834788 on OpenAlexaff
R. Scott Watson, Andrew C. Argent, Lauren R. Sorce, Adrienne G. Randolph, L. Nelson Sanchez‐Pinto, Tellen D. Bennett, Niranjan Kissoon, Luregn J. Schlapbach

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockSepsisPhoenixIntensive care medicineSurviving Sepsis CampaignShock (circulatory)Severe sepsisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution in understanding sepsis signs and symptoms has been ongoing since the term was first introduced more than 2000 years ago. In adults, there have been three sepsis definition conferences focused on developing operational criteria for sepsis in 1991, 2001, and 2016 (1–3). While the first two iterations were based on criteria for the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) with phenomenological characterization of severity using an array of expert-based criteria, the 2016 consensus conference (commonly known as Sepsis-3) defined sepsis as life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection and used the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score to operationalize it (3). Sepsis-3 not only departed from the SIRS-based criteria, but it set a new standard for the development of objective, data-driven criteria for sepsis. In pediatrics, progress in defining sepsis has been slower. In 2005, using the standard methodology of the time, an international panel of 20 experts modified the 2001 adult consensus definition of sepsis based on SIRS by incorporating age-appropriate physiologic variables and other expert-based criteria for pediatric organ dysfunction to define severe sepsis and septic shock (4). Nearly 20 years of progress into pediatric sepsis research and care has led to a greater understanding of sepsis epidemiology and pathophysiology. However, by 2018, SIRS in children, as in adults, was considered an adaptive host response to infection (5), rather than a maladaptive pathologic state. In this series of five Editorial Commentaries for Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (6), we write about an original article that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in February 2024, in which we presented the Phoenix criteria for sepsis and septic shock in children (7). Here, in “Part 1,” as representatives from the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Pediatric Sepsis Definitions Taskforce, we provide the overarching commentary—additional to what has already appeared in JAMA—on the evolution toward the 2024 Phoenix definitions and operational criteria for sepsis and septic shock in children. The other four Editorial Commentaries in this collection for PCCM focus on aspects of “using” the Phoenix criteria that generated important discussion during development, since publication in JAMA, and at the 2024 SCCM Critical Care Congress (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjfhiMOV7M0). Figure 1 provides the framework of the development of the Phoenix criteria, and the accompanying commentaries discuss aspects deserving comment, including: “Part 2,” using “interventions” as criteria for sepsis (8); “Part 3,” using “stages of sepsis” (9); “Part 4,” using “world orientated” criteria for sepsis (10); and “Part 5,” using “parsimony” in sepsis definition (11).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207