Trial reportCritical care explorations2025
Relationship Between Phenotyping and Individualized Absolute Risk Differences in Sepsis: A Secondary Analysis of Two Approaches in Two Multicenter Trials.
Trial report in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSepsis trials likely include patients who vary in response to therapeutic interventions. The optimal approach to identify such differences in treatment response remains unclear. Estimating individualized absolute risk differences (iARDs) to model treatment response at an individual patient level using supervised effect models applied to randomized trial data may be informative. We explored the relationship between two subgrouping approaches and a recently published iARD model for the effect of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) resuscitation in sepsis.
designSecondary analysis of the Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) and Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) trials. We applied clinical subtypes (α, β, γ, δ) to 829 ProCESS and 1588 ARISE patients and biologic "hyperinflammatory" and "nonhyperinflammatory" subphenotypes to 363 ProCESS patients with biomarker data using established methods. We predicted iARDs with supervised learning using clinical variables as predictors and 90-day mortality as the primary outcome. We evaluated iARD variability within subgroups.
settingEighty-one sites worldwide. PATIENTS/SUBJECTS: Adults with septic shock.
interventionsEGDT or usual care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe average treatment effect of EGDT appeared to vary within both clinical and biologic subphenotypes. EGDT appeared potentially beneficial in the β and nonhyperinflammatory subphenotypes but harmful in the γ and hyperinflammatory subphenotypes. However, the predicted iARDs within each subgroup ranged from considerable harm to considerable benefit. For example, for the β-subtype, the average mortality reduction from EGDT was 8.5% (95% CI, -0.4 to 17.5), but the iARDs ranged from a 29% increase to a 16% reduction in mortality, with 39% of patients predicted to be harmed.
conclusionsAlthough both clinical and biologic phenotyping may identify subgroups whose average treatment effect is beneficial or harmful, individual risks and benefits within subgroups still vary dramatically, raising concern that phenotyping may not reliably or safely personalize sepsis care.
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.