Back

Therapeutic Distance: An Orbit-Based Framework for ICU Decision Support - Initial Validation in 11,627 Sepsis Patients from MIMIC-IV

Basilakis, A.

2026-04-04 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.64898/2026.04.02.26350049 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Patient matching in intensive care databases yields sample sizes too small for individualised outcome analysis. Current AI systems provide population-level guideline summaries but omit stratification variables that may invert therapy signals at the individual level. Methods: We developed the Therapeutic Distance framework, which computes the z-standardised distance between a patient's clinical parameters and the centroid of MIMIC-IV patients who received each therapy: d(P,T) = sum of wi(T) x |(Li - mui(T)) / sigmai|. We hypothesise that patients at the same distance to a therapy (same orbit) have comparable outcomes. Six validation experiments were performed on 11,627 sepsis patients (SAPS-II 30-80) from MIMIC-IV v3.1. Results: Echo-stratified vasopressin recipients showed mortality of 30.1% (n=146, 95% CI 22.6-37.7%) versus 53.9% without echo (n=2,426, 95% CI 51.9-55.9%). Confidence intervals did not overlap (bootstrap, 1,000 resamples). However, echo-stratified patients had lower general severity (SAPS-II 49.2 vs 53.9) but higher cardiac biomarkers (troponin 1.0 vs 0.51 ng/mL), indicating that the observed difference is compatible with both severity confounding and a possible cardiac-specific vasopressin effect. Leave-one-out prediction with uniform weights achieved AUC 0.61 as a structural baseline. Conclusions: Therapeutic Distance replaces patient matching with orbit matching, substantially increasing usable sample sizes. The echo-vasopressin finding is hypothesis-generating and mechanistically plausible but not causally proven. The framework is intended as a clinical decision support signal under uncertainty, not as a causal inference method.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
21.8%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.8%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
9.8%
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.1%
5
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
7
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
8
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.0%
9
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.0%
10
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
11
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
12
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
13
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
14
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.4%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
16
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.3%
17
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
18
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
19
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
20
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
21
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.8%
24
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
Clinical and Experimental Immunology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
27
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
29
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
30
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%