Derivation, Validation, and Potential Treatment Implications of Novel Clinical Phenotypes for Sepsis
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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].”
From Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care Medicine: a consensus of 22. (2025) · cites this paper as [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
Vincent, J. L., Moreno, R., Takala, J., Willatts, S., De Mendonça, A., Bruining, H., Reinhart, C. K., Suter, P. M., & Thijs, L. G. (1996) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf01709751 · Cited by 11,674 · see citing works
A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock.
The ProCESS Investigators (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1401602 · Cited by 2,414 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(21):2063.
- Newgard CD, Haukoos JS. Advanced statistics: missing data in clinical research-part 2: multiple imputation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(7):669-678.
- Ankerst M. OPTICS: ordering points to identify the clustering structure. SIGMOD Rec. 1999;28(2): 49-60. doi:10.1145/304181.304187 · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
Rajpurkar, P., Chen, E., Banerjee, O., & Topol, E. J. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01614-0 · Cited by 3,212 · see citing works
A blood atlas of COVID-19 defines hallmarks of disease severity and specificity
Ahern, D. J., Ai, Z., Ainsworth, M., Allan, C., Allcock, A., Angus, B., Ansari, M. A., Arancibia-Cárcamo, C. V., Aschenbrenner, D., Attar, M., et al. (2022) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.012 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
Clinical applications of artificial intelligence in sepsis: A narrative review
Schinkel, M., Paranjape, K., Nannan Panday, R. S., Skyttberg, N., & Nanayakkara, P. W. B. (2019) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.103488 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Ethical considerations about artificial intelligence for prognostication in intensive care
Beil, M., Proft, I., van Heerden, D., Sviri, S., & van Heerden, P. V. (2019) · Intensive Care Medicine Experimental · doi:10.1186/s40635-019-0286-6 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Luz, C. F., Vollmer, M., Decruyenaere, J., Nijsten, M. W., Glasner, C., & Sinha, B. (2020) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.02.003 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care Medicine: a consensus of 22.
Cecconi, M., Greco, M., Shickel, B., Angus, D. C., Bailey, H., Bignami, E., Calandra, T., Celi, L. A., Einav, S., Elbers, P., et al. (2025) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-025-05532-2 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“Before integrating these methodologies into clinical workflows, we need to make sure clinicians can accept the paradigm shift between broad syndromes and specific sub-phenotypes, ultimately supporting the transition toward personalized medicine [35, 39–41].”
Self-citationRothrock, S. G., Cassidy, D. D., Barneck, M., Schinkel, M., Guetschow, B., Myburgh, C., Nguyen, L., Earwood, R., Nanayakkara, P. W. B., Nannan Panday, R. S., et al. (2020) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.04.042 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
O'Reilly, D., McGrath, J., & Martin-Loeches, I. (2024) · Journal of Intensive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jointm.2023.10.001 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Jiang, Z., Bo, L., Wang, L., Xie, Y., Cao, J., Yao, Y., Lu, W., Deng, X., Yang, T., & Bian, J. (2023) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107772 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Tao, L., Zhang, C., Zeng, L., Zhu, S., Li, N., Li, W., Zhang, H., Zhao, Y., Zhan, S., & Ji, H. (2020) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/16912 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Boussi Rahmouni, H., Hassine, N. B. E. H., Chouchen, M., Ceylan, H. İ., Muntean, R. I., Bragazzi, N. L., & Dergaa, I. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13202553 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
The Precision Resuscitation With Crystalloids in Sepsis (PRECISE) Trial: A Trial Protocol
Bhavani, S. V., Holder, A., Miltz, D., Kamaleswaran, R., Khan, S., Easley, K., Murphy, D. J., Franks, N., Wright, D. W., Kraft, C., et al. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34197 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
An Explainable Machine Learning Model for Early Prediction of Sepsis Using ICU Data
Nesaragi, N., & Patidar, S. (2021) · Infections and Sepsis Development · doi:10.5772/intechopen.98957 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Physiologic signatures within six hours of hospitalization identify acute illness phenotypes
Ren, Y., Loftus, T. J., Li, Y., Guan, Z., Ruppert, M. M., Datta, S., Upchurch, G. R., Tighe, P. J., Rashidi, P., Shickel, B., et al. (2022) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000110 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Machine learning predicts sepsis deterioration trajectories.
Zhang, R., Long, F., Zhao, Z., Wu, J., Tan, R., Xu, W., Li, L., Long, Y., & Qu, H. (2026) · NPJ Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02565-x · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“This approach aligns with the growing recognition that sepsis is not a uniform disease but rather a syndrome with diverse manifestations and trajectories 16,17 .”
InfluentialCatling, F. J., Nagendran, M., Festor, P., Bien, Z., Harris, S., Faisal, A. A., Gordon, A. C., & Komorowski, M. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.08.26.23294666 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Acute management of sepsis beyond 24 hours
Premachandra, A., & Heming, N. (2024) · Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1787991 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- 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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-05-28
- Volume
- 321
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 2003
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- PMC
- PMC6537818
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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