Cited by 1,567Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentInflammation biomarkers and pathwaysAcute Kidney Injury Research

Derivation, Validation, and Potential Treatment Implications of Novel Clinical Phenotypes for Sepsis

Open access
Seymour, Christopher W., Kennedy, Jason N., Wang, Shu, Chang, Chung-Chou H., Elliott, Corrine F., Xu, Zhongying, Berry, Scott, Clermont, Gilles +14 more·2019·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome. Identification of distinct clinical phenotypes may allow more precise therapy and improve care. Objective: To derive sepsis phenotypes from clinical data, determine their reproducibility and correlation with host-response biomarkers and clinical outcomes, and assess the potential causal relationship with results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design, Settings, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of data sets using statistical, machine learning, and simulation tools. Phenotypes were derived among 20 189 total patients (16 552 unique patients) who met Sepsis-3 criteria within 6 hours of hospital presentation at 12 Pennsylvania hospitals (2010-2012) using consensus k means clustering applied to 29 variables. Reproducibility and correlation with biological parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed in a second database (2013-2014; n = 43 086 total patients and n = 31 160 unique patients), in a prospective cohort study of sepsis due to pneumonia (n = 583), and in 3 sepsis RCTs (n = 4737). Exposures: All clinical and laboratory variables in the electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: Derived phenotype (α, β, γ, and δ) frequency, host-response biomarkers, 28-day and 365-day mortality, and RCT simulation outputs. Results: The derivation cohort included 20 189 patients with sepsis (mean age, 64 [SD, 17] years; 10 022 [50%] male; mean maximum 24-hour Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, 3.9 [SD, 2.4]). The validation cohort included 43 086 patients (mean age, 67 [SD, 17] years; 21 993 [51%] male; mean maximum 24-hour SOFA score, 3.6 [SD, 2.0]). Of the 4 derived phenotypes, the α phenotype was the most common (n = 6625; 33%) and included patients with the lowest administration of a vasopressor; in the β phenotype (n = 5512; 27%), patients were older and had more chronic illness and renal dysfunction; in the γ phenotype (n = 5385; 27%), patients had more inflammation and pulmonary dysfunction; and in the δ phenotype (n = 2667; 13%), patients had more liver dysfunction and septic shock. Phenotype distributions were similar in the validation cohort. There were consistent differences in biomarker patterns by phenotype. In the derivation cohort, cumulative 28-day mortality was 287 deaths of 5691 unique patients (5%) for the α phenotype; 561 of 4420 (13%) for the β phenotype; 1031 of 4318 (24%) for the γ phenotype; and 897 of 2223 (40%) for the δ phenotype. Across all cohorts and trials, 28-day and 365-day mortality were highest among the δ phenotype vs the other 3 phenotypes (P < .001). In simulation models, the proportion of RCTs reporting benefit, harm, or no effect changed considerably (eg, varying the phenotype frequencies within an RCT of early goal-directed therapy changed the results from >33% chance of benefit to >60% chance of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of data sets from patients with sepsis, 4 clinical phenotypes were identified that correlated with host-response patterns and clinical outcomes, and simulations suggested these phenotypes may help in understanding heterogeneity of treatment effects. Further research is needed to determine the utility of these phenotypes in clinical care and for informing trial design and interpretation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2019.5791

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Machine learning can stratify septic patients into clinically meaningful subgroups using high-dimensional data, which can subsequently inform risk assessment and prognosis.

    “Seymour et al. demonstrated how machine learning can stratify septic patients into clinically meaningful subgroups using high-dimensional data, which can subsequently inform risk assessment and prognosis [35].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, et al. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009-2014. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1241- 1249. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.13836 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8): 762-774. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0288 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Scicluna BP, van Vught LA, Zwinderman AH, et al. Classification of patients with sepsis according to blood genomic endotype. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5(10):816-826. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(17) 30294-1 · DOI
  4. Sweeney TE, Azad TD, Donato M, et al. Unsupervised analysis of transcriptomics in bacterial sepsis across multiple datasets reveals three robust clusters. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(6): 915-925. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000003084 · DOI
  5. Davenport EE, Burnham KL, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Genomic landscape of the individual host response and outcomes in sepsis: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(4):259-271. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(16)00046-1 · DOI
  6. Opal SM, Laterre PF, Francois B, et al; ACCESS Study Group. Effect of eritoran, an antagonist of MD2-TLR4, on mortality in patients with severe sepsis. JAMA. 2013;309(11):1154-1162. doi:10.1001/ jama.2013.2194
  7. Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF, et al; Recombinant human protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) Study Group. Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(10):699-709. doi:10.1056/ NEJM200103083441001 · DOI
  8. Kellum JA, Kong L, Fink MP, et al; GenIMS Investigators. Understanding the inflammatory cytokine response in pneumonia and sepsis. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(15):1655-1663. doi:10.1001/ archinte.167.15.1655
  9. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al; SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS international sepsis definitions conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4): 1250-1256. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000050454. 01978.3B · DOI
  10. Medzhitov R, Schneider DS, Soares MP. Disease tolerance as a defense strategy. Science. 2012;335 (6071):936-941. doi:10.1126/science.1214935 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, et al. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(7):1303-1310. doi:10.1097/ 00003246-200107000-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(21):2063.
  13. Newgard CD, Haukoos JS. Advanced statistics: missing data in clinical research-part 2: multiple imputation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(7):669-678.
  14. Ankerst M. OPTICS: ordering points to identify the clustering structure. SIGMOD Rec. 1999;28(2): 49-60. doi:10.1145/304181.304187 · DOI
  15. Wilkerson MD, Hayes DN. ConsensusClusterPlus: a class discovery tool with confidence assessments and item tracking. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(12):1572- 1573. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq170 · DOI
  16. Calfee CS, Delucchi K, Parsons PE, et al; NHLBI ARDS Network. Subphenotypes in acute respiratory distress syndrome: latent class analysis of data from two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(8):611-620. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(14) 70097-9 · DOI
  17. Rindskopf D, Rindskopf W. The value of latent class analysis in medical diagnosis. Stat Med. 1986;5 (1):21-27. doi:10.1002/sim.4780050105 · DOI
  18. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, et al. The APACHE III prognostic system: risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest. 1991;100(6):1619-1636. doi:10.1378/chest.100. 6.1619 · DOI
  19. Deng M, Scott MJ, Loughran P, et al. Lipopolysaccharide clearance, bacterial clearance, and systemic inflammatory responses are regulated by cell type-specific functions of TLR4 during sepsis. J Immunol. 2013;190(10):5152-5160. doi:10. 4049/jimmunol.1300496 · DOI
  20. Abraham E, Laterre PF, Garg R, et al; Administration of Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Early Stage Severe Sepsis (ADDRESS) Study Group. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis and a low risk of death. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(13):1332-1341. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa050935 · DOI
  21. Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, et al; PROWESS-SHOCK Study Group. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2055-2064. doi:10.1056/ NEJMoa1202290 · DOI
  22. Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et al; FEAST Trial Group. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(26):2483-2495. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1101549 · DOI
  23. Andrews B, Muchemwa L, Kelly P, Lakhi S, Heimburger DC, Bernard GR. Simplified severe sepsis protocol: a randomized controlled trial of modified early goal-directed therapy in Zambia. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(11):2315-2324. doi:10.1097/CCM. 0000000000000541 · DOI
  24. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al; Early Goal-Directed Therapy Collaborative Group. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345 (19):1368-1377. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa010307 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007;298(10):1209-1212. doi:10.1001/jama.298.10. 1209 · DOI
  26. Berry SM, Connor JT, Lewis RJ. The platform trial: an efficient strategy for evaluating multiple treatments. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1619-1620. doi:10. 1001/jama.2015.2316

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seymour, C. W., Kennedy, J. N., Wang, S., Chang, C.-C. H., Elliott, C. F., Xu, Z., Berry, S., Clermont, G., Cooper, G., Gomez, H., Huang, D. T., Kellum, J. A., Mi, Q., Opal, S. M., Talisa, V., van der Poll, T., Visweswaran, S., Vodovotz, Y., Weiss, J. C., Yealy, D. M., Yende, S., & Angus, D. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Berry Consultants, LLC (United States) (US)
  • Department of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island Hospital (US)
  • Center of Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Seymour, Christopher W.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2019-05-28
Volume
321
Issue
20
Pages
2003
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2944988359
Cited by
1,567
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 326 · 2025: 235 · 2024: 232 · 2023: 189 · 2022: 183 · 2021: 185 · 2020: 163 · 2019: 51
FWCI
110.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Carnegie Mellon University
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers
  • Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM061992, R01GM107231, R01GM105728, P50GM076659, R34GM102696, K08GM117310, R01GM101197, R35GM119519)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM012095)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Inflammation biomarkers and pathways
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
Keywords
sepsis, clinical phenotype, K-means clustering, host response biomarkers, SARS-CoV-2, pneumonia, mortality, vasopressor administration, SOFA score, clinical trial simulation, Sepsis-3 criteria, electronic health records, phenotypic heterogeneity, precision medicine, sepsis severity prediction
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Phenotype, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Cluster Analysis, Hospital Mortality, Sepsis, Organ Dysfunction Scores, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review