Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2025
An international observational study validating gene-expression sepsis immune subgroups.
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS): epidemiology, etiology, molecular mechanisms, diagnosis and therapeutic strategies.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
- The molecular ICU: a primer on omics, informatics and the future of precision critical care.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Bench-to-Bedside Insights into the Challenges of Immunosuppression in Sepsis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Dendritic-cell depletion and dysfunction in sepsis: a compartment- and evidence-aware synthesis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Development of a prognostic model for in-hospital mortality in idiopathic membranous nephropathy patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia based on persistent lymphopenia.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- The 15th Anniversary ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Sepsis subphenotypes, theragnostics and personalized sepsis care.Intensive care medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSepsis gene-expression sub-phenotypes with prognostic and theranostic potential have been discovered. These have been identified retrospectively and have not been translated to methods that could be deployed at the bedside. We aimed to identify subgroups of septic patients at high-risk of poor outcome, using a rapid, multiplex RNA-based test.
methodsAdults with sepsis, in the intensive care unit (ICU) were recruited from 17 sites in the United Kingdom, Sweden and France. Blood was collected at days 2-5 (S1), 6-8 (S2) and 13-15 (S3) after ICU admission and analyzed centrally. Patients were assigned into 'high' and 'low' risk groups using two models previously developed for the Immune-Profiling Panel prototype on the bioMérieux FilmArray® system.
results357 patients were recruited (March 2021-November 2022). 69% were male with a median age of 67 years, APACHE II score of 21 and a 30% 90-day mortality rate. The proportions of high-risk patients decreased over the three sampling times (model 1: 53%, 40%, 15% and model 2: 81%, 74%, 37%). In model 1, 90-day mortality was higher in a high-risk group at each time (S1: 35% vs 24%, p = 0.04; S2: 43% vs 20%, p < 0.001; S3: 52% vs 24%, p = 0.007). In model 2, mortality was only significantly different at the second sampling time (S1: 30% vs 27%, p = 0.77; S2: 34% vs 14%, p = 0.002; S3: 35% vs 23%, p = 0.13).
conclusionsGene-expression diagnostics can identify patients with sepsis at high-risk of poor outcomes and could be used to identify patients for precision medicine trials. REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11364482 Registered 24th September 2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.