The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biomarkers of sepsis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A complex network of biological mediators underlies the clinical syndrome of sepsis. The nonspecific physiologic criteria of sepsis syndrome or the systemic inflammatory response syndrome do not adequately identify patients who might benefit from either conventional anti-infective therapies or from novel therapies that target specific mediators of sepsis. Validated biomarkers of sepsis may improve diagnosis and therapeutic decision making for these high-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: To develop a methodologic framework for the identification and validation of biomarkers of sepsis. METHODS: A small group meeting of experts in clinical epidemiology, biomarker development, and sepsis clinical trials; selective narrative review of the biomarker literature. RESULTS: The utility of a biomarker is a function of the degree to which it adds value to the available clinical information in the domains of screening, diagnosis, risk stratification, and monitoring of the response to therapy. We identified needs for greater standardization of biomarker methodologies, greater methodologic rigor in biomarker studies, wider integration of biomarkers into clinical studies (in particular, early phase studies), and increased collaboration among investigators, pharmaceutical industry, biomarker industry, and regulatory agencies. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarkers promise to transform sepsis from a physiologic syndrome to a group of distinct biochemical disorders. This transformation could aid therapeutic decision making, and hence improve the prognosis for patients with sepsis, but will require an unprecedented degree of systematic investigation and collaboration.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200005043421801 · Cited by 12,941
The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000
Martin, G. S., Mannino, D. M., Eaton, S., & Moss, M. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022139 · Cited by 5,841
A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care
Hébert, P. C., Wells, G., Blajchman, M. A., Marshall, J., Martin, C., Pagliarello, G., Tweeddale, M., Schweitzer, I., & Yetisir, E. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199902113400601 · Cited by 5,187
Self-citationRibic, C. M., Sargent, D. J., Moore, M. J., Thibodeau, S. N., French, A. J., Goldberg, R. M., Hamilton, S. R., Laurent-Puig, P., Gryfe, R., Shepherd, L. E., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022289 · Cited by 2,160
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
A network-based analysis of systemic inflammation in humans
Program, I. A. H. R. T. I. L. S. C. R., Calvano, S. E., Xiao, W., Richards, D. R., Felciano, R. M., Baker, H. V., Cho, R. J., Chen, R. O., Brownstein, B. H., Cobb, J. P., et al. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03985 · Cited by 1,429
Monocyte deactivation in septic patients: Restoration by IFN-γ treatment
Döcke, W.-D., Randow, F., Syrbe, U., Krausch, D., Asadullah, K., Reinke, P., Volk, H.-D., & Kox, W. (1997) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm0697-678 · Cited by 1,190
Increased mortality associated with growth hormone treatment in critically ill adults
Takala, J., Ruokonen, E., Webster, N. R., Nielsen, M. S., Zandstra, D. F., Vundelinckx, G., & Hinds, C. J. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199909093411102 · Cited by 1,023
Opal, S. M., Scannon, P. J., Vincent, J., White, M., Carroll, S. F., Palardy, J. E., Parejo, N. A., Pribble, J. P., & Lemke, J. H. (1999) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/315093 · Cited by 609
Cited by
Pierrakos, C., & Vincent, J.-L. (2010) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc8872 · Cited by 1,377
Why have clinical trials in sepsis failed?
Marshall, J. C. (2014) · Trends in Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2014.01.007 · Cited by 805
Self-citationStearns-Kurosawa, D. J., Osuchowski, M. F., Valentine, C., Kurosawa, S., & Remick, D. G. (2011) · Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease · doi:10.1146/annurev-pathol-011110-130327 · Cited by 549
New Approaches to Sepsis: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
Reinhart, K., Bauer, M., Riedemann, N. C., & Hartog, C. S. (2012) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00016-12 · Cited by 533
Self-citationA robust scoring system to evaluate sepsis severity in an animal model
Shrum, B., Anantha, R. V., Xu, S. X., Donnelly, M., Haeryfar, S. M., McCormick, J. K., & Mele, T. (2014) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-233 · Cited by 520
Metadata
- Authors
- Marshall, J. C., & Reinhart, K.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2290-2298
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2005896876
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 17.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Biomarkers of sepsis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181a02afc
- The paper
- Marshall, J. C., & Reinhart, K. (2009). Biomarkers of sepsis. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181a02afc
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.
