Skip to main content

Subphenotypes in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A scoping review across clinical, biological, computational, imaging, omics, and artificial intelligence approaches.

Journal of critical care2026-02-02PubMed
Total: 78.5Innovation: 8Impact: 0Rigor: 0Citation: 0

Summary

Scoping review of 60 adult studies (2013–2025) across modalities showing reproducible ARDS subphenotypes, particularly hyperinflammatory vs hypoinflammatory classes associated with differences in mortality, ventilator-free days, organ failure, and heterogeneity of treatment effect. Clinical and computational parsimonious classifiers may be closest to bedside translation, whereas imaging/omics/AI need more external validation.

Key Findings

  • Across 60 studies, the most robust and externally validated distinction was between hyperinflammatory and hypoinflammatory ARDS subphenotypes, which differ in mortality, ventilator-free days, and organ failure.
  • Biological and computational phenotyping approaches showed stronger reproducibility and validation than imaging and omics; parsimonious classifiers (few variables) are feasible for near real-time assignment.
  • Secondary analyses of randomized trials indicate heterogeneity of treatment effect by phenotype for interventions such as fluid management, statins, corticosteroids, and recruitment maneuvers.

Clinical Implications

Supports use of hyperinflammatory/hypoinflammatory classification for prognostic enrichment and hypothesis generation in trials; suggests prioritizing parsimonious classifiers (clinical or computational) for real-time bedside application and prospective phenotype-stratified/adaptive trials.

Why It Matters

Synthesizes heterogeneous literature to identify reproducible ARDS subphenotypes with prognostic and treatment-response implications, guiding future phenotype-stratified trials and near-term classifier implementation.

Limitations

  • As a scoping review, formal quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) and bias assessment are limited; heterogeneity across studies complicates direct comparison.
  • Variable external validation and inconsistent reporting standards across included studies limit certainty about classifier performance in diverse settings.

Future Directions

Prospective, phenotype-stratified or adaptive RCTs using standardized, transparent algorithms; external validation of parsimonious classifiers in international cohorts; integration of multimodal data with explainable AI to improve interpretability.

Study Information

Study Type
Systematic Review
Research Domain
Diagnosis/Prognosis/Pathophysiology
Evidence Level
II - Comprehensive scoping/systematic synthesis of observational and interventional studies (60 studies included)
Study Design
OTHER