Evidence Hub

Parsimonious Subphenotyping Algorithms Perform Differently in Patients With Sepsis and Hematologic Malignancy

Ronner L, Giannini HM, Miano TA, Ittner CAG, Turner AP, Dunn TG, Agyekum RS, Dasgupta A et al.

Critical care medicine, 2025

930 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Objectives: Latent class assignment-derived subphenotyping algorithms may identify treatment-responsive subgroups of critically ill patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome. It is unclear if these algorithms are generalizable to patients with comorbid malignancy, a state which may perturb influential inflammatory biomarkers. This study aimed to test whether malignancy or neutropenia modified the effect of subphenotype assignment by two algorithms as applied to a prospective cohort enriched for ICU patients with active malignancy.

Design: Prospective cohort study at a single U.S. quaternary referral center.

Setting/patients: ICU patients older than 18 admitted to an ICU with a primary admission indication of sepsis.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: We applied two published subphenotyping algorithms utilizing either interleukin (IL)-6 or IL-8 (in addition to soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 and bicarbonate) to our cohort of 930 patients with sepsis, 396 (42%) of whom had active malignancy. A greater proportion of hematologic malignancy patients were assigned the "hyperinflammatory" subphenotype by the IL-8-utilizing algorithm than the IL-6 algorithm (58% vs. 32%). Patients with leukemia and neutropenia were overrepresented among those classified as hyperinflammatory by IL-8 algorithm. We constructed Cox proportional hazards models to assess for interaction between the presence of solid malignancy, hematologic malignancy, and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 930 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free