Rapid and robust identification of sepsis using SeptiCyte RAPID in a heterogenous patient population
Balk, R.; Esper, A. M.; Martin, G. S.; Miller, R. R.; Lopansri, B. K.; Burke, J. P.; Levy, M.; Rothman, R. E.; d'Alessio, F. R.; Sidhaye, V. K.; Aggarwal, N. R.; Greenberg, J. A.; Yoder, M.; Patel, G.; Gilbert, E.; Parada, J. P.; Afshar, M.; Kempker, J. A.; van der Poll, T.; Schultz, M. J.; Scicluna, B. P.; Klein-Klouwenberg, P. M. C.; Liebler, J.; Blodget, E.; Kumar, S.; Mei, W.; Navalkar, K.; Yager, T. D.; Sampson, D.; Kirk, J. T.; Cermelli, S.; Davis, R. F.; Brandon, R. B.
Show abstract
Background/ObjectiveSeptiCyte RAPID is a transcriptional host response assay that discriminates between sepsis and non-infectious systemic inflammation (SIRS) with a one-hour turnaround time. The overall performance of this test in a cohort of 419 patients has recently been described [Balk et al., J Clin Med 2024, 13, 1194]. In this study we present results from a detailed stratification analysis in which SeptiCyte RAPID performance was evaluated in the same cohort across patient groups and subgroups encompassing different demographics, comorbidities and disease, sources and types of pathogens, interventional treatments, and clinically defined phenotypes. The aims were to identify variables that might affect the ability of SeptiCyte RAPID to discriminate between sepsis and SIRS, and to determine if any patient subgroups appeared to present a diagnostic challenge for the test. Methods1) Subgroup analysis, with subgroups defined by individual demographic or clinical variables, using conventional statistical comparison tests. 2) Principal component analysis and k-means clustering analysis, to investigate phenotypic subgroups defined by unique combinations of demographic and clinical variables. ResultsNo significant differences in SeptiCyte RAPID performance were observed between most groups and subgroups. One notable exception involved an enhanced SeptiCyte RAPID performance for a phenotypic subgroup defined by a combination of clinical variables suggesting a septic shock response. ConclusionsWe conclude that for this patient cohort SeptiCyte RAPID performance was largely unaffected by key variables associated with heterogeneity in patients suspected of sepsis.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clustering ICU patients with sepsis based on the patterns of their circulating biomarkers: a secondary analysis of the CAPTAIN prospective multicenter cohort study 97%
- Development and validation of a cellular host response test as an early diagnostic for sepsis 97%
- A comparison of machine learning models versus clinical evaluation for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Transcriptomic Severity Metric that Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Surgical Sepsis Patients 96%
- A Multicenter Evaluation of Blood Purification with Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity Blood Filter for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19: A Preliminary Report 92%
- Early prediction of impending septic shock in children using age-adjusted Sepsis-3 criteria 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Calprotectin as a sepsis diagnostic marker in critical care: a retrospective observational study 98%
- COMPARISON OF sPLA2-IIA PERFORMANCE WITH HIGH-SENSITIVE CRP, NEUTROPHIL PERCENTAGE, PCT AND LACTATE TO IDENTIFY BACTERIAL INFECTION: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY 95%
- Application of physiological network mapping in the prediction of survival in critically ill patients with acute liver failure 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Androgen receptor pathway activity assay for sepsis diagnosis and prediction of favorable prognosis 97%
- Three Distinct Trajectories of Red Blood Cell Distribution Width and Their Significant Association with Mortality in Sepsis Patients: A Group-Based Trajectory Modeling Study with Validation 95%
- Unsupervised clustering reveals phenotypes of AKI in ICU Covid19 patients 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.