Towards personalized medicine: a scoping review of immunotherapy in sepsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite significant progress in our understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis and extensive clinical research, there are few proven therapies addressing the underlying immune dysregulation of this life-threatening condition. The aim of this scoping review is to describe the literature evaluating immunotherapy in adult patients with sepsis, emphasizing on methods providing a “personalized immunotherapy” approach, which was defined as the classification of patients into a distinct subgroup or subphenotype, in which a patient’s immune profile is used to guide treatment. Subgroups are subsets of sepsis patients, based on any cut-off in a variable. Subphenotypes are subgroups that can be reliably discriminated from other subgroup based on data-driven assessments. Included studies were randomized controlled trials and cohort studies investigating immunomodulatory therapies in adults with sepsis. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov, from the first paper available until January 29th, 2024. The search resulted in 15,853 studies. Title and abstract screening resulted in 1409 studies (9%), assessed for eligibility; 771 studies were included, of which 282 (37%) were observational and 489 (63%) interventional. Treatment groups included were treatments targeting the innate immune response, the complement system, coagulation and endothelial dysfunction, non-pharmalogical treatment, pleiotropic drugs, immunonutrition, concomitant treatments, Traditional Chinese Medicine, immunostimulatory cytokines and growth factors, intravenous immunoglobulins, mesenchymal stem cells and immune-checkpoint inhibitors. A personalized approach was incorporated in 70 studies (9%). Enrichment was applied using cut-offs in temperature, laboratory, biomarker or genetic variables. Trials often showed conflicting results, possibly due to the lack of patient stratification or the potential influence of severity and timing on immunomodulatory therapy results. When a personalized approach was applied, trends of clinical benefit for several interventions emerged, which hold promise for future clinical trials using personalized immunotherapy.
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 | 0.019 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".