Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39003476›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2024

Enhancing sepsis biomarker development: key considerations from public and private perspectives.

Jean-Francois Llitjos, Enitan D Carrol, Marcin F Osuchowski, Marc Bonneville, Brendon P Scicluna, Didier Payen, Adrienne G Randolph, Stephan Witte, Jesus Rodriguez-Manzano, Bruno François and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Decoding Host-Pathogen Dynamics inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Nucleated Red Blood Cells for Predicting Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Sepsis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jean-Francois LlitjosOpen Innovation and Partnerships (OI&P), bioMérieux S.A., Marcy l'Etoile, France. jeanfrancois.llitjos@biomerieux.com.
Enitan D CarrolDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, University of Liverpool Institute of Infection Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, Liverpool, UK.
Marcin F OsuchowskiLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Traumatology, The Research Center in Cooperation with AUVA, Vienna, Austria.
Marc BonnevilleMedical and Scientific Affairs, Institut Mérieux, Lyon, France.
Brendon P SciclunaDepartment of Applied Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, Mater Dei Hospital, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.
Didier PayenParis 7 University Denis Diderot, Paris Sorbonne, Cité, France.
Adrienne G RandolphDepartments of Anaesthesia and Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Stephan WitteAdrenoMed AG, Hennigsdorf, Germany.
Jesus Rodriguez-ManzanoDepartment of Infectious Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Bruno FrançoisMedical-Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Réanimation Polyvalente, Dupuytren University Hospital, CHU de Limoges, 2 Avenue Martin Luther King, 87042, Limoges Cedex, France. b.francois@unilim.fr.
Sepsis biomarker workshop group

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implementation of biomarkers in sepsis and septic shock in emergency situations, remains highly challenging. This viewpoint arose from a public-private 3-day workshop aiming to facilitate the transition of sepsis biomarkers into clinical practice. The authors consist of international academic researchers and clinician-scientists and industry experts who gathered (i) to identify current obstacles impeding biomarker research in sepsis, (ii) to outline the important milestones of the critical path of biomarker development and (iii) to discuss novel avenues in biomarker discovery and implementation. To define more appropriately the potential place of biomarkers in sepsis, a better understanding of sepsis pathophysiology is mandatory, in particular the sepsis patient's trajectory from the early inflammatory onset to the late persisting immunosuppression phase. This time-varying host response urges to develop time-resolved test to characterize persistence of immunological dysfunctions. Furthermore, age-related difference has to be considered between adult and paediatric septic patients. In this context, numerous barriers to biomarker adoption in practice, such as lack of consensus about diagnostic performances, the absence of strict recommendations for sepsis biomarker development, cost and resources implications, methodological validation challenges or limited awareness and education have been identified. Biomarker-guided interventions for sepsis to identify patients that would benefit more from therapy, such as sTREM-1-guided Nangibotide treatment or Adrenomedullin-guided Enibarcimab treatment, appear promising but require further evaluation. Artificial intelligence also has great potential in the sepsis biomarker discovery field through capability to analyse high volume complex data and identify complex multiparametric patient endotypes or trajectories. To conclude, biomarker development in sepsis requires (i) a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach employing the most advanced analytical tools, (ii) the creation of a platform that collaboratively merges scientific and commercial needs and (iii) the support of an expedited regulatory approval process.

Indexed as

BiomarkersSepsisHumansBiomarkersBiomarkerIntensive careSepsisWorkshop

Identifiers

PMID39003476
PMCPMC11246589

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.