Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 139 of the 139 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Current gaps in sepsis immunology: new opportunities for translational research

Open access
Rubio, Ignacio, Osuchowski, Marcin F, Shankar-Hari, Manu, Skirecki, Tomasz, Winkler, Martin Sebastian, Lachmann, Gunnar, La Rosée, Paul, Monneret, Guillaume, Venet, Fabienne, Bauer, Michael, Brunkhorst, Frank M, Kox, Matthijs, Cavaillon, Jean-Marc, Uhle, Florian, Weigand, Markus A, Flohé, Stefanie B, Wiersinga, W Joost, Martin-Fernandez, Marta, Almansa, Raquel, Martin-Loeches, Ignacio, Torres, Antoni, Giamarellos-Bourboulis, Evangelos J, Girardis, Massimo, Cossarizza, Andrea, Netea, Mihai G, van der Poll, Tom, Scherag, André, Meisel, Christian, Schefold, Joerg C, Bermejo-Martín, Jesús F·2019·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Increasing evidence supports a central role of the immune system in sepsis, but the current view of how sepsis affects immunity, and vice versa, is still rudimentary. The European Group on Immunology of Sepsis has identified major gaps that should be addressed with high priority, such as understanding how immunological alterations predispose to sepsis, key aspects of the immunopathological events during sepsis, and the long-term consequences of sepsis on patient's immunity. We discuss major unmet topics in those three categories, including the role of key immune cells, the cause of lymphopenia, organ-specific immunology, the dynamics of sepsis-associated immunological alterations, the role of the microbiome, the standardisation of immunological tests, the development of better animal models, and the opportunities offered by immunotherapy. Addressing these gaps should help us to better understand sepsis physiopathology, offering translational opportunities to improve its prevention, diagnosis, and care.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/s1473-3099(19)30567-5

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 139 references

Cited by

See all 375

Metadata

Authors
Rubio, I., Osuchowski, M. F., Shankar-Hari, M., Skirecki, T., Winkler, M. S., Lachmann, G., La Rosée, P., Monneret, G., Venet, F., Bauer, M., Brunkhorst, F. M., Kox, M., Cavaillon, J.-M., Uhle, F., Weigand, M. A., Flohé, S. B., Wiersinga, W. J., Martin-Fernandez, M., Almansa, R., Martin-Loeches, I., Torres, A., Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E. J., Girardis, M., Cossarizza, A., Netea, M. G., van der Poll, T., Scherag, A., Meisel, C., Schefold, J. C., & Bermejo-Martín, J. F.
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
19
Issue
12
Pages
e422-e436
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2980930900
Cited by
375
References
139
FWCI
24.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current gaps in sepsis immunology: new opportunities for translational research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(19)30567-5
The paper
Rubio, I., Osuchowski, M. F., Shankar-Hari, M., Skirecki, T., Winkler, M. S., Lachmann, G., La Rosée, P., Monneret, G., Venet, F., Bauer, M., Brunkhorst, F. M., Kox, M., Cavaillon, J.-M., Uhle, F., Weigand, M. A., Flohé, S. B., Wiersinga, W. J., Martin-Fernandez, M., Almansa, R., . . . Bermejo-Martín, J. F. (2019). Current gaps in sepsis immunology: new opportunities for translational research. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(19)30567-5

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.