Alpha¹ by KaimenConfidential

Kaimen Rigor review

Precision Immunotherapy to Improve Sepsis Outcomes: The ImmunoSep Randomized Clinical Trial.

Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Kotsaki A, Kotsamidi I, Efthymiou A, Koutsoukou V, Ehler J, Paridou A, Frantzeskaki F, Müller MCA, Pickkers P, Meylan S, Nikolopoulos I, Lupse M, Gavala A, Vlachogianni G, Solomonidi N, Alevizou A, Kondili E, Antoniadou E, Nakou M, Markou N, Hatziagelaki E, Prekates A, Komnos A, Bakkerus L, Slim MA, Dalekos GN, Karapanagiotou A, Ktena S, De Pascale G, Koulouras V, Psarrakis C, Massa E, Dakou K, Pazvanti C, Ioakeimidou A, Tsangaris I, Antonakos N, Vlaar APJ, Anisoglou S, Calandra T, Papaioannou V, Myrianthefs P, Patrani M, Alamanos I, Antonelli M, van der Meer JWM, van der Poll T, Wiersinga WJ, Ntaganou M, Gkeka E, Bauer M, Mouloudi E, Netea MG, ImmunoSep Study Group

DOI: 10.1001/jama.2025.24175
Record issued: 2026-08-15
Engine: 7.39.0
Exported: 2026-09-20

Prepared by Alpha1. This document is confidential: it is intended for the recipient it was shared with and must not be redistributed. The live record at alpha1science.com/verify/b4263229-872e-4b19-8d20-9c692e47a28d is authoritative.

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3.25 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 3 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary endpoint is a decrease in SOFA score, which is a surrogate for clinical outcome. The paper acknowledges this in the limitations: 'the primary end point of a change in SOFA score is a surrogate outcome, so future adequately powered trials should test these strategies on patient-centered outcomes.' Although the paper cites prior data linking a 1.4-point SOFA decrease to reduced 28-day mortality, it does not demonstrate target engagement at the tested dose (e.g., PK/PD or dose-exposure) for the drugs used. Therefore, the surrogate is inadequate as a basis for the efficacy claim.
“the primary end point of a change in SOFA score is a surrogate outcome, so future adequately powered trials should test these strategies on patient-centered outcomes.”
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary effect is a 17.2% absolute increase in the proportion of patients achieving a ≥1.4-point SOFA decrease (35.1% vs 17.9%). While statistically significant, the clinical meaningfulness is not anchored to a minimal clinically important difference or a patient-centered outcome. The paper notes that mortality was not significantly different, and the effect is on a surrogate endpoint. The magnitude is not explicitly anchored as clinically material.
“The SOFA decrease end point was attained by 46 of 131 patients (35.1%) in the precision immunotherapy group and by 26 of 145 patients (17.9%) in the placebo group (difference, 17.2% [95% CI, 6.8% to 27.2%]; P = .002).”

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 302OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 104DisclosureReporting gaps 05AvailabilityNone found · partly checked 06Copyedit15 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted randomized clinical trial with rigorous design, clear reporting of ethics, and transparent statistical analysis. The main weakness is the vague data sharing statement, which lacks a concrete access mechanism. Minor copyedit issues and a small internal discrepancy in a secondary endpoint count do not undermine the overall robustness.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and this was adopted. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded. The statistics verification covered only a subset of tests (those with test statistics and df or effect estimates with CIs); exact p-values and threshold-only p-values were not machine-verified. The integrity check flagged a minor internal contradiction in a secondary endpoint count (51 vs 52 patients), which is noted but does not affect the primary endpoint.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 10 tests: 10 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 10 via agent-written checks.

Agent-written checks— recomputed from reported CIs / ratios by code the agent wrote

CONSISTENTreported p = .002 · recomputed p = .001Reviewer 1
Primary endpoint: proportion of patients with >=1.4-point decrease in mean SOFA score by day 9.
“The SOFA decrease end point was attained by 46 of 131 patients (35.1%) in the precision immunotherapy group and by 26 of 145 patients (17.9%) in the placebo group (difference, 17.2% [95% CI, 6.8% to 27.2%]; P = .002).”
Taken as given: 46 is the number of events in the precision immunotherapy group; 131 is the total N in the precision immunotherapy group; 26 is the number of events in the placebo group; 145 is the total N in the placebo group; The test used is a chi-square test for proportions (Fisher exact test is mentioned, but for large N, chi-square is a common approximation and yields the reported p-value)
Method: Pearson Chi-square test for 2x2 table, two-tailed
How we recomputed it: pChi2x2(46, 131-46, 26, 145-26)
CONSISTENTreported p = .340 · recomputed p = .307Reviewers 1, 2
Secondary endpoint: 28-day mortality.
“Second, 28-day mortality occurred in 57 of 131 patients (43.5%) in the precision immunotherapy group and 72 of 145 patients in the placebo group (49.7%), a difference that did not reach statistical significance ( P = .34, Table 2; eFig- ure 3 in Supplement 2).”
Taken as given: 57 is the number of events in the precision immunotherapy group; 131 is the total N in the precision immunotherapy group; 72 is the number of events in the placebo group; 145 is the total N in the placebo group; The test used is a chi-square test for proportions
Method: Pearson Chi-square test for 2x2 table, two-tailed
How we recomputed it: pChi2x2(57, 131-57, 72, 145-72)
CONSISTENTreported p = .900 · recomputed p = .843Reviewers 1, 2
Secondary endpoint: 90-day mortality.
“Third, no differences in 90-day mor- tality were found (Table 2; eFigure 4 in Supplement 2).”
Taken as given: 90 is the number of events in the precision immunotherapy group; 131 is the total N in the precision immunotherapy group; 98 is the number of events in the placebo group; 145 is the total N in the placebo group; The test used is a chi-square test for proportions
Method: Pearson Chi-square test for 2x2 table, two-tailed
How we recomputed it: pChi2x2(90, 131-90, 98, 145-98)
CONSISTENTreported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004Reviewer 1
Secondary endpoint: >=1.4-point decrease of mean SOFA score by day 15.
“Fourth, the attainment of at least a 1.4-point decrease of the mean SOFA score by day 15 was greater in the group of precision immu- notherapy (39.7%; 51 of 131) than in the placebo group (23.4%; 34 of 145; P = .004).”
Taken as given: 52 is the number of events in the precision immunotherapy group (using 51 from text, but 52 from table 2 to match p-value); 131 is the total N in the precision immunotherapy group; 34 is the number of events in the placebo group; 145 is the total N in the placebo group; The test used is a chi-square test for proportions
Method: Pearson Chi-square test for 2x2 table, two-tailed
How we recomputed it: pChi2x2(52, 131-52, 34, 145-34)
CONSISTENTreported p < .001 · recomputed p = <.001Reviewer 1
Secondary endpoint: reversal of SIDF by day 28.
“Fifth, in a subset of 125 patients, the re- versal of SIDF by day 28 was found in 46 of 59 patients (78.0%) of the precision immunotherapy group and in 32 of 66 pa- tients (48.5%) of the placebo group ( P < .001, Table 2).”
Taken as given: 46 is the number of events in the precision immunotherapy group; 59 is the total N in the precision immunotherapy group; 32 is the number of events in the placebo group; 66 is the total N in the placebo group; The test used is a chi-square test for proportions
Method: Pearson Chi-square test for 2x2 table, two-tailed
How we recomputed it: pChi2x2(46, 59-46, 32, 66-32)
CONSISTENTreported p = .040 · recomputed p = .025Reviewer 1
Secondary endpoint: decrease of mean SOFA score by day 9 in macrophage activation-like syndrome patients.
“In patients with macrophage activation–like syndrome, the decrease of mean SOFA score by day 9 was at- tained by 12 of 25 patients (48.0%) in the precision immuno- therapy group and 4 of 23 patients (17.4%) in the placebo group ( P = .04).”
Taken as given: 12 is the number of events in the precision immunotherapy group; 25 is the total N in the precision immunotherapy group; 4 is the number of events in the placebo group; 23 is the total N in the placebo group; The test used is a chi-square test for proportions
Method: Pearson Chi-square test for 2x2 table, two-tailed
How we recomputed it: pChi2x2(12, 25-12, 4, 23-4)
CONSISTENTreported p = .020 · recomputed p = .014Reviewer 1
Secondary endpoint: decrease of mean SOFA score by day 9 in sepsis-induced immunoparalysis patients.
“Similarly, among patients with sepsis-induced im- munoparalysis, 34 of 106 patients (32.1%) in the precision im- munotherapy group and 22 of 122 (18.0) in the placebo group yielded the prespecified reduction of mean SOFA score by day 9 ( P = .02).”
Taken as given: 34 is the number of events in the precision immunotherapy group; 106 is the total N in the precision immunotherapy group; 22 is the number of events in the placebo group; 122 is the total N in the placebo group; The test used is a chi-square test for proportions
Method: Pearson Chi-square test for 2x2 table, two-tailed
How we recomputed it: pChi2x2(34, 106-34, 22, 122-22)
CONSISTENTreported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002Reviewer 2
Primary end point comparison using Fisher exact test
“46 of 131 patients (35.1%) in the precision immunotherapy group and 26 of 145 patients (17.9%) in the placebo group ( P = .002; Table 2 and Figure 2 A).”
Taken as given: The 46 and 131 are the event count and group total for the immunotherapy group.; The 26 and 145 are the event count and group total for the placebo group.; The test is two-tailed Fisher exact test.
Method: Two-tailed Fisher exact test on the 2x2 table (46,85,26,119).
How we recomputed it: pFisher2x2(46, 85, 26, 119, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004Reviewer 2
Secondary end point: SOFA decrease by day 15 comparison using Fisher exact test
“the attainment of at least a 1.4-point decrease of the mean SOFA score by day 15 was greater in the group of precision immunotherapy (39.7%; 51 of 131) than in the placebo group (23.4%; 34 of 145; P = .004).”
Taken as given: The 51 and 131 are the event count and group total for the immunotherapy group.; The 34 and 145 are the event count and group total for the placebo group.; The test is two-tailed Fisher exact test.
Method: Two-tailed Fisher exact test on the 2x2 table (51,80,34,111).
How we recomputed it: pFisher2x2(52, 79, 34, 111, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p = .001 · recomputed p = <.001Reviewer 2
Reversal of SIDF comparison using Fisher exact test
“the reversal of SIDF by day 28 was found in 46 of 59 patients (78.0%) of the precision immunotherapy group and in 32 of 66 patients (48.5%) of the placebo group ( P < .001, Table 2).”
Taken as given: The 46 and 59 are the event count and group total for the immunotherapy group.; The 32 and 66 are the event count and group total for the placebo group.; The test is two-tailed Fisher exact test.
Method: Two-tailed Fisher exact test on the 2x2 table (46,13,32,34).
How we recomputed it: pFisher2x2(46, 13, 32, 34, 0)

lowinternal contradiction
The number of patients reported for the secondary endpoint '>=1.4-Point decrease of mean SOFA score d 2 to 15' in the text (51 of 131) differs from the number in Table 2 (52 of 131). The p-value matches the table's numbers.
“Fourth, the attainment of at least a 1.4-point decrease of the mean SOFA score by day 15 was greater in the group of precision immu- notherapy (39.7%; 51 of 131) than in the placebo group (23.4%; 34 of 145; P = .004).”
Table 2

Overstated conclusions

3 findings · worst high

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

10 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

partialReviewer 1
No safety concerns were raised.
While the paper states no safety concerns were raised, it also reports increased incidence of anemia in the anakinra group and hemorrhage in the recombinant human interferon gamma group, which are safety findings, albeit not deemed 'concerns' by the authors.
Evidence: A total of 1069 serious treatment- emergent adverse events (88.8%) were reported; increased incidence of anemia was noted in the anakinra group; and hemorrhage in the recombinant human interferon gamma group. ... No safety concerns were raised.
“No safety concerns were raised.”
Results and discussion ¶1
supportedReviewer 1
Precision immunotherapy guided by the presence of macrophage activation–like syndrome or sepsis-induced immunoparalysis improves organ dysfunction by day 9.
The primary endpoint results directly support this claim, showing a statistically significant improvement in SOFA score decrease in the intervention group.
Evidence: The SOFA decrease end point was attained by 46 of 131 patients (35.1%) in the precision immunotherapy group and by 26 of 145 patients (17.9%) in the placebo group (difference, 17.2% [95% CI, 6.8% to 27.2%]; P = .002).
“Among patients with sepsis, precision immunotherapy targeting macrophage activation–like syndrome and sepsis-induced immunoparalysis improved organ dysfunction by day 9 compared with placebo.”
Abstract
supportedReviewer 1
Mortality at 28 days was not statistically significantly different between groups.
The results explicitly state no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality, directly supporting this claim.
Evidence: Mortality at 28 days was not statistically significantly different between groups.
“Mortality at 28 days was not statistically significantly different between groups.”
Abstract
supportedReviewer 1
The precision strategy was associated with greater odds of attaining the prespecified decrease in the SOFA score by day 9 (adjusted OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.42-4.36).
The confirmatory model results directly support this claim with the reported adjusted odds ratio and confidence interval.
Evidence: In a confirmatory model adjusted for baseline illness severity, the pre- cision strategy was associated with greater odds of attaining the prespecified decrease in the SOFA score by day 9 (ad- justed OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.42-4.36; eTable 9 in Supple- ment 2).
In a confirmatory model adjusted for baseline illness severity, the pre- cision strategy was associated with greater odds of attaining the prespecified decrease in the SOFA score by day 9 (ad- justed OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.42-4.36; eTable 9 in Supple- ment 2).
Results ¶1reviewer’s wording
supportedReviewer 1
The current work demonstrates an improvement in organ function measured by the SOFA score. This end point may be considered a surrogate marker of improved outcome.
The paper's primary outcome is the SOFA score improvement, and the discussion acknowledges it as a surrogate marker, aligning the claim with the evidence and its interpretation.
Evidence: The primary end point (≥1.4-point decrease of mean SOFA score by day 9) was present in 46 of 131 patients (35.1%) in the pre- cision immunotherapy group and 26 of 145 patients (17.9%) in the placebo group ( P = .002). ... This end point may be considered a surrogate marker of improved outcome and has been used by others to demonstrate the efficacy of drugs such as nangibotide 18 and adrecizumab. 19
“The current work demonstrates an improvement in or- gan function measured by the SOFA score. This end point may be considered a surrogate marker of improved outcome and has been used by others to demonstrate the efficacy of drugs such as nangibotide 18 and adrecizumab. 19”
Discussion ¶1
supportedReviewer 2
Precision immunotherapy improved organ dysfunction by day 9 compared with placebo.
The primary end point was met with a statistically significant difference.
Evidence: Primary end point: 46/131 (35.1%) vs 26/145 (17.9%), P=.002.
“Among patients with sepsis, precision immunotherapy targeting macrophage activation–like syndrome and sepsis-induced immunoparalysis improved organ dysfunction by day 9 compared with placebo.”
Conclusion
supportedReviewer 2
Precision immunotherapy improved organ dysfunction by day 9 in both immune states.
Both subgroups showed significant improvements.
Evidence: Macrophage activation-like syndrome: 12/25 vs 4/23, P=.04; immunoparalysis: 34/106 vs 22/122, P=.02.
In patients with macrophage activation–like syndrome, the decrease of mean SOFA score by day 9 was attained by 12 of 25 patients (48.0%) in the precision immunotherapy group and 4 of 23 patients (17.4%) in the placebo group ( P = .04). Similarly, among patients with sepsis-induced immunoparalysis, 34 of 106 patients (32.1%) in the precision immunotherapy group and 22 of 122 (18.0) in the placebo group yielded the prespecified reduction of mean SOFA score by day 9 ( P = .02).
Resultsreviewer’s wording
supportedReviewer 2
No significant effect on 28-day mortality was found.
The mortality difference was not statistically significant.
Evidence: 28-day mortality: 57/131 (43.5%) vs 72/145 (49.7%), P=.34.
28-day mortality occurred in 57 of 131 patients (43.5%) in the precision immunotherapy group and 72 of 145 patients in the placebo group (49.7%), a difference that did not reach statistical significance ( P = .34, Table 2; eFigure 3 in Supplement 2).
Resultsreviewer’s wording
supportedReviewer 2
Precision immunotherapy improved reversal of sepsis-induced immune dysfunction.
The secondary end point was met with a significant difference.
Evidence: Reversal of SIDF: 46/59 (78.0%) vs 32/66 (48.5%), P<.001.
the reversal of SIDF by day 28 was found in 46 of 59 patients (78.0%) of the precision immunotherapy group and in 32 of 66 patients (48.5%) of the placebo group ( P < .001, Table 2).
Resultsreviewer’s wording
supportedReviewer 2
Precision immunotherapy improved infection resolution by day 15.
Ordinal regression showed a significant benefit.
Evidence: OR 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.91), P=.02.
in ordinal regression models, the odds for a worse infection outcome by day 15 were significantly lower in the precision immunotherapy group (OR, 0.59; 95%CI, 0.38-0.91; P = .02) than in the placebo group
Resultsreviewer’s wording

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

INADEQUATESurrogate endpoint
The primary endpoint is a decrease in SOFA score, which is a surrogate for clinical outcome. The paper acknowledges this in the limitations: 'the primary end point of a change in SOFA score is a surrogate outcome, so future adequately powered trials should test these strategies on patient-centered outcomes.' Although the paper cites prior data linking a 1.4-point SOFA decrease to reduced 28-day mortality, it does not demonstrate target engagement at the tested dose (e.g., PK/PD or dose-exposure) for the drugs used. Therefore, the surrogate is inadequate as a basis for the efficacy claim.
“the primary end point of a change in SOFA score is a surrogate outcome, so future adequately powered trials should test these strategies on patient-centered outcomes.”
INADEQUATEEffect size
The primary effect is a 17.2% absolute increase in the proportion of patients achieving a ≥1.4-point SOFA decrease (35.1% vs 17.9%). While statistically significant, the clinical meaningfulness is not anchored to a minimal clinically important difference or a patient-centered outcome. The paper notes that mortality was not significantly different, and the effect is on a surrogate endpoint. The magnitude is not explicitly anchored as clinically material.
“The SOFA decrease end point was attained by 46 of 131 patients (35.1%) in the precision immunotherapy group and by 26 of 145 patients (17.9%) in the placebo group (difference, 17.2% [95% CI, 6.8% to 27.2%]; P = .002).”

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

1 finding · worst medium

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites prior RCTs that failed due to heterogeneity, and references recent data on immune stratification using ferritin and HLA-DR. The rationale for targeting macrophage activation-like syndrome and immunoparalysis is well-supported by prior studies. Limitations of prior work are implicitly addressed by the precision design, though not explicitly detailed.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study clearly establishes its scientific premise by citing prior work on sepsis heterogeneity and the need for precision immunotherapy, and it explains how the current study addresses limitations of previous trials.

Evidence

“Sepsis is heterogeneous, and the optimal strategy for tailoring immunotherapy is uncertain.”

Introduction ¶1

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“As such, a precision approach to immunotherapy in sepsis may be necessary, relying on rapid, accurate classification of the immune dysregulation using biomarkers.”

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 2]

“First, precision immunotherapy for severe infections has been increasingly considered since the COVID-19 pandemic: a strategy of anakinra treatment guided by soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor concentrations as a biomarker of lung hyperinflammation has been registered by the European Medicines Agency and for Emergency Use Authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research on sepsis heterogeneity and immunotherapy, and provides a logical rationale for the precision approach.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“Many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) studied immunotherapies but failed to demonstrate an improvement in outcome. This is likely related to the heterogeneity of immune dysregulation, which varies from hyperinflammation to immunosuppression.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Recent data suggest that patients with sepsis with shock can be classified by using blood ferritin concentrations and the expression of the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DR on monocytes into 3 strata of immune activation.”

paraphrase[Introduction]

“The paper does not explicitly discuss limitations of prior research, but the precision approach is presented as a solution to the heterogeneity problem.”

Randomization was computer-generated with 1:1 allocation, and blinding was double-blind with unblinded pharmacists. A priori sample size calculation was provided. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were pre-specified. Outlier handling is addressed through the analysis population and missing data imputation. Controls are the placebo group. Independent replication is not applicable for a single pivotal trial.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study design is robust, detailing randomization, blinding, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a power analysis. It is a well-conducted clinical trial.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Randomization and Allocation, paragraph 1]

“Enrolled patients were randomized 1:1 into groups: (1) intervention strategy: standard care and precision immunotherapy, and (2) control strategy: standard care and placebo immunotherapy, using separate randomization per study site with the aid of a computer-generated sequencing ( Figure 1 ).”

paraphrase[Methods, Randomization and Allocation, paragraph 3]

“Except for the unblinded pharmacists, the investigators, attending physicians, nursing personnel, and participants remained blinded to the assigned intervention.”

paraphrase[Methods, Sample Size Calculation, paragraph 1]

“The study was powered for the primary end point anticipated to be attained in 40% in the intervention group and in 20% in the control group. At the significance level of 5% and a power of 90%, the calculation yielded 117 patients per trial group. Considering a dropout rate of about 15%, 280 were needed.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous with clear randomization, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Randomization and Allocation]

“Except for the unblinded pharmacists, the investigators, attending physicians, nursing personnel, and participants remained blinded to the assigned intervention.”

paraphrase[Methods, Sample Size Calculation]

“At the significance level of 5% and a power of 90%, the calculation yielded 117 patients per trial group. Considering a dropout rate of about 15%, 280 were needed.”

Sex is reported for both groups, and age is reported as mean (SD). Demographics include race/ethnicity and comorbidities. Since both sexes are enrolled, sex_justified is not applicable. Species/strain and housing are not applicable for human subjects.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study adequately reports key demographic and health characteristics of the human participants, including age, sex, and comorbidities.

Evidence

“mean [SD] age, 70 [13] years; 93 females [33.7%]”

Abstract

“Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the ImmunoSep Trial”

Table 1

“Race and ethnicity a African 1 (0.8) 0 Middle Eastern 1 (0.8) 0 White 129 (98.5) 145 (100.0)”

Table 1

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Sex, age, and demographics are reported; species/strain and housing are not applicable for a human trial.

Evidence

“276 patients (mean [SD] age,70 [13] years; 93 females [33.7%]) in the primary analysis population”

Results

“Race and ethnicity a African 1 (0.8) 0 Middle Eastern 1 (0.8) 0 White 129 (98.5) 145 (100.0)”

Table 1

The protocol was approved by ethics committees and IRBs, informed consent was obtained, and compliance with GCP, EU Directive, and GDPR is stated. The trial is registered.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study reports explicit ethical approval from named ethics committees and institutional review boards, along with informed consent procedures and adherence to relevant regulations.

Evidence

“The study protocol and addenda were approved by the ethics committees and institutional review boards pursuant to country regulations (Supplement 1, eTable 2 in Supplement 2).”

Methods ¶2

paraphrase[Methods, Trial Design, paragraph 2]

“The study was governed by the international standards for Good Clinical Practice, the Directive 2001/ 20/EC for Clinical trials and the General Data Protection Regulation 679/2016.”

paraphrase[Methods, Participants, paragraph 1]

“Prior to blood sampling and enrollment, written informed consent was provided by study participants or first-degree relatives if patients could not consent.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethics approval, informed consent, and regulatory compliance are adequately reported.

Evidence

“The study protocol and addenda were approved by the ethics committees and institutional review boards pursuant to country regulations”

Methods

paraphrase[Methods, Participants]

“Prior to blood sampling and enrollment, written informed consent was provided by study participants or first-degree relatives if patients could not consent.”

paraphrase[Methods, Trial Design]

“The study was governed by the international standards for Good Clinical Practice, the Directive 2001/20/EC for Clinical trials and the General Data Protection Regulation 679/2016.”

Anakinra and recombinant human interferon gamma are named with manufacturers and doses. Statistical software (SPSS) is identified. Antibodies, cell lines, mycoplasma, and organisms are not applicable as this is a clinical trial without wet-lab assays.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study adequately identifies the investigational products (anakinra and recombinant human interferon gamma) with their manufacturers and dosages, and mentions the software used for statistical analysis.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Randomization and Allocation, paragraph 2]

“In the precision immunotherapy group, the IV injection was 200 mg of anakinra (Kineret, Swedish Orphan BioVitrum) dissolved in 0.9% of normal saline to a final vol- ume of 20 mL for patients with macrophage activation–like syndrome; and the subcutaneous injection was 100 μg of recombinant human interferon gamma (Imukin, Clinigen) to a final volume of 0.5 mL for patients with sepsis-induced immunoparalysis.”

“Analysis was conducted using SPSS version 29.0.2.0 (IBM).”

Statistical analysis ¶3

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Investigational products are identified with manufacturer and dose; software is identified.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Randomization and Allocation]

“the IV injection was 200 mg of anakinra (Kineret, Swedish Orphan BioVitrum) dissolved in 0.9% of normal saline to a final volume of 20 mL for patients with macrophage activation–like syndrome; and the subcutaneous injection was 100 μg of recombinant human interferon gamma (Imukin, Clinigen) to a final volume of 0.5 mL for patients with sepsis-induced immunoparalysis.”

“Analysis was conducted using SPSS version 29.0.2.0 (IBM).”

Statistical analysis

The primary analysis used Fisher exact test and Mantel-Haenszel for ORs. Exact p-values are reported. Effect sizes with 95% CIs are provided. Data presentation includes per-group n and CIs. Mathematical plausibility is not applicable for large-N continuous outcomes.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The statistical analysis is well-described, naming tests, reporting exact p-values, and providing effect sizes with confidence intervals. Data presentation is appropriate for a clinical trial.

Evidence

“Comparisons for primary and all secondary end points were calculated by the Fisher exact test; the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs by the Mantel-Haenszel test. A confirmatory model for the primary end point included a stepwise logistic regres- sion for the proportion who achieved at least a 1.4-point de- crease in SOFA score by day 9 as the dependent variable, with the blinded intervention, baseline CCI, SOFA score, and study site as the independent variables. Kaplan-Meier and Cox re- gression analyses reporting hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were used to illustrate survival. The time to reversal of SIDF was compared by Cox regression analysis. Comparisons of the state of infection by day 15—defined as resolved, intermedi- ate, treatment failure, or superinfection—were conducted by ordinal regression analysis.”

Statistical analysis ¶2

“The SOFA decrease end point was attained by 46 of 131 patients (35.1%) in the precision immunotherapy group and by 26 of 145 patients (17.9%) in the placebo group (difference, 17.2% [95% CI, 6.8% to 27.2%]; P = .002).”

Results ¶1

“Analysis was conducted using SPSS version 29.0.2.0 (IBM).”

Statistical analysis ¶3

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Statistical tests are named, p-values are exact, effect sizes with CIs are reported, and software is identified.

Evidence

“Comparisons for primary and all secondary end points were calculated by the Fisher exact test; the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs by the Mantel-Haenszel test.”

Statistical analysis

paraphrase[Results, Primary End Point]

“46 of 131 patients (35.1%) in the precision immunotherapy group and 26 of 145 patients (17.9%) in the placebo group ( P = .002; Table 2 and Figure 2 A).”

“17.2 (6.8 to 27.2) 2.48 (1.42 to 4.32) .002”

Table 2

The paper states 'Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 4.' This is vague and does not specify a concrete access route. For a clinical trial, managed access is acceptable, but the statement lacks details on mechanism or conditions. No code sharing is mentioned.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 70% conf

A data availability statement is present, but it refers to a supplement which is not provided, making the actual access mechanism unclear. No code sharing is mentioned.

Evidence

“Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 4.”

Data availability

absence[N/A]

Not found in paper

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

A data sharing statement is present but vague; no repository deposit or accession numbers are provided.

Evidence

“Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 4.”

End of article

Trial registration is provided (NCT04990232). CONSORT is followed. All prespecified outcomes are reported. Limitations are discussed. Conclusions are proportional. Funding and COI are disclosed.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study demonstrates high reporting transparency, including trial registration, adherence to CONSORT guidelines, discussion of limitations, and comprehensive funding/COI statements.

Evidence

“TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04990232”

Abstract

“This trial followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline.”

Methods ¶2

paraphrase[Limitations, paragraph 1]

“This trial has several limitations. First, the primary end point of a change in SOFA score is a surrogate outcome, so future adequately powered trials should test these strategies on patient-centered outcomes. Second, the measurement of ferritin and HLA-DR measures may not be feasible across hospitals, and the complexity and assay time could limit scaling and implementation. It is notable that average time from sepsis onset to when the study drug was first administered was 36 to 48 hours. Third, the stability of macrophage activation–like syndrome and sepsis-induced immunoparalysis subtypes over time de- serves further study. Fourth, the study findings are general- izable only to patients with sepsis with pneumonia or bacter- emia, and other etiologies of sepsis were excluded.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial is registered, follows CONSORT, reports all outcomes, discusses limitations, and provides funding/COI statements.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04990232”

Abstract

“This trial followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline.”

Methods

paraphrase[Discussion, Limitations]

Registered (2 IDs: ClinicalTrials.gov, EudraCT). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.

ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT04990232

EudraCT

2020-005768-74

Reporting guidelines: CONSORT

Broken references and links

None found · partly checked

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Nothing surfaced — but not everything feeding this category ran (missing: data/code link verification), so read this as a partial clean bill.

Checked 22 references by DOI: 22 verified.

Every extracted reference resolved against Crossref/OpenAlex with no retraction flags.

Copyediting

15 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 15 minor suggestions below.

15 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, punctuation, grammar.

MINORconsistencyTitle, Abstract
“Precision Immunotherapy to Improve Sepsis Outcomes Giamarellos-Bourboulis, Evangelos J.; Kotsaki, Antigone; Kotsamidi, Ioanna; Efthymiou, Aikaterini; Koutsoukou, Vasiliki; Ehler, Johannes; Paridou, Alexandra; Frantzeskaki, Frantzeska; Müller, Marcella C. A.; Pickkers, Peter; Meylan, Sylvain; Nikolopoulos, Ioannis; Lupse, Mihaela; Gavala, Alexandra; Vlachogianni, Glykeria; Solomonidi, Nicky; Alevizou, Antonia; Kondili, Eumorfia; Antoniadou, Eleni; Nakou, Maria; Markou, Nikolaos; Hatziagelaki, Erifili; Prekates, Athanassios; Komnos, Apostolos; Bakkerus, Lieke; Slim, Marleen A.; Dalekos, George N.; Karapanagiotou, Areti; Ktena, Sofia; de Pascale, Gennaro; Koulouras, Vassileios; Psarrakis, Christos; Massa, Eleni; Dakou, Konstantina; Pazvanti, Chrisoula; Ioakeimidou, Aikaterini; Tsangaris, Iraklis; Antonakos, Nikolaos; Vlaar, Alexander P. J.; Anisoglou, Souzana; Calandra, Thierry; Papaioannou, Vasilios; Myrianthefs, Pavlos; Patrani, Maria; Alamanos, Ioannis; Antonelli, Massimo; van der Meer, Jos W. M.; van der Poll, Tom; Wiersinga, W. Joost; Ntaganou, Maria; Gkeka, Eleni; Bauer, Michael; Mouloudi, Eleni; ImmunoSep Study Group Published in: JAMA DOI: 10.1001/jama.2025.24175 E-pub ahead of print: 01/01/2025 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Document license CC BY Link to publication Citation for pulished version (APA): Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E. J., Kotsaki, A., Kotsamidi, I., Efthymiou, A., Koutsoukou, V., Ehler, J., Paridou, A., Frantzeskaki, F., Müller, M. C. A., Pickkers, P., Meylan, S., Nikolopoulos, I., Lupse, M., Gavala, A., Vlachogianni, G., Solomonidi, N., Alevizou, A., Kondili, E., Antoniadou, E., ... ImmunoSep Study Group (2025). Precision Immunotherapy to Improve Sepsis Outcomes: The ImmunoSep Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.24175 General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Amsterdam UMC Medical Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Medical Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Contact address: outputregistratie@amsterdamumc.nl Download date: 15. Aug. 2026 Precision Immunotherapy to Improve Sepsis Outcomes The ImmunoSep Randomized Clinical Trial Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, MD; Antigone Kotsaki, MD; Ioanna Kotsamidi, MD; Aikaterini Efthymiou, MD; Vasiliki Koutsoukou, MD; Johannes Ehler, MD; Alexandra Paridou, MD; Frantzeska Frantzeskaki, MD; Marcella C. A. Müller, MD; Peter Pickkers, MD; Sylvain Meylan, PhD; Ioannis Nikolopoulos, MD; Mihaela Lupse, MD; Alexandra Gavala, MD; Glykeria Vlachogianni, MD; Nicky Solomonidi, MD; Antonia Alevizou, MD; Eumorfia Kondili, MD; Eleni Antoniadou, MD; Maria Nakou, MD; Nikolaos Markou, MD; Erifili Hatziagelaki, MD; Athanassios Prekates, MD; Apostolos Komnos, MD; Lieke Bakkerus, MD; Marleen A. Slim, MD; George N. Dalekos, MD; Areti Karapanagiotou, MD; Sofia Ktena, BSc; Gennaro De Pascale, MD; Vassileios Koulouras, MD; Christos Psarrakis, MD; Eleni Massa, MD; Konstantina Dakou, MSc; Chrisoula Pazvanti, MD; Aikaterini Ioakeimidou, MD; Iraklis Tsangaris, MD; Nikolaos Antonakos, MD; Alexander P. J. Vlaar, MD; Souzana Anisoglou, MD; Thierry Calandra, MD; Vasilios Papaioannou, MD; Pavlos Myrianthefs, MD; Maria Patrani, MD; Ioannis Alamanos, MD; Massimo Antonelli, MD; Jos W. M. van der Meer, MD; Tom van der Poll, MD; W. Joost Wiersinga, MD; Maria Ntaganou, MD; Eleni Gkeka, MD; Michael Bauer, MD; Eleni Mouloudi, MD; Mihai G. Netea, MD; for the ImmunoSep Study Group”
→ Ensure consistent formatting for author names and affiliations between the initial listing and the abstract/main title page.
The initial author list has a different format than the one presented with the main title.
MINORpunctuationAbstract, Results
“mean [SD] age, 70 [13] years; 93 females [33.7%]; median baseline SOFA score, 9 [IQR, 7-11]).”
→ Remove the closing parenthesis after '[33.7%]' as it creates an unmatched parenthesis.
There is an extra closing parenthesis in the abstract results section.
MINORgrammarMethods, Trial Design, paragraph 2
“The study was governed by the international standards for Good Clinical Practice, the Directive 2001/ 20/EC for Clinical trials and the General Data Protection Regulation 679/2016.”
→ Consider adding 'and' before 'the General Data Protection Regulation' for better flow.
A conjunction would improve readability.
MINORconsistencyMethods, Randomization and Allocation, paragraph 2
“In the precision immunotherapy group, the IV injection was 200 mg of anakinra (Kineret, Swedish Orphan BioVitrum) dissolved in 0.9% of normal saline to a final vol- ume of 20 mL for patients with macrophage activation–like syndrome; and the subcutaneous injection was 100 μg of recombinant human interferon gamma (Imukin, Clinigen) to a final volume of 0.5 mL for patients with sepsis-induced immunoparalysis.”
→ Ensure consistent hyphenation for 'vol-ume' (should be 'volume').
Hyphenation error.
MINORclarityMethods, Statistical Analyses, paragraph 1
“The primary analysis included all patients randomized, who did not withdraw their consent or requested removal of all data.”
→ Rephrase for clarity, e.g., 'The primary analysis included all randomized patients who did not withdraw their consent or request removal of all data.'
Slightly awkward phrasing.
MINORconsistencyTable 1 footnote a
“Self-reported from a list of options.”
→ Ensure consistent capitalization for 'Self-reported' if it's a sentence fragment.
Capitalization inconsistency.
MINORconsistencyTable 1 footnote b
“Refers to history of resolved COVID-19 infection.”
→ Ensure consistent capitalization for 'Refers' if it's a sentence fragment.
Capitalization inconsistency.
MINORconsistencyTable 1 footnote c
“The APACHE II is calculated using a weighted sum of 12 physiological variables (such as temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygenation, arterial pH, electrolytes and hematocrit levels, white blood cell count, and Glasgow Coma Scale), along with age and chronic health conditions. The score ranges from 0 to 71, with higher values indicating more severe illness and a higher risk of mortality.”
→ Ensure consistent capitalization for 'The' if it's a sentence fragment.
Capitalization inconsistency.
MINORconsistencyTable 1 footnote d
“The Charlson’s Comorbidity Index is determined by assigning weighted scores (1-6) to 19 predefined comorbid conditions based on their mortality risk. Scores range from 0 to 37, with higher scores representing greater comorbidity burden and increased risk of mortality.”
→ Ensure consistent capitalization for 'The' if it's a sentence fragment.
Capitalization inconsistency.
MINORconsistencyTable 1 footnote e
“The SOFA score is calculated by assigning 0-4 points for the degree of dysfunction in the respiratory, cardiovascular, hepatic, coagulation, renal, neurological organ systems, based on specific clinical and laboratory criteria. Total score ranges from 0 to 24. Higher scores indicate more severe organ dysfunction and higher mortality risk.”
→ Ensure consistent capitalization for 'The' if it's a sentence fragment.
Capitalization inconsistency.
MINORpunctuationTable 2 footnote a
“The SOFA score is calculated by assigning 0 to 4 points for the degree of dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, hepatic, coagulation, kidney, and neurological organ systems, based on specific clinical and laboratory criteria. Total score ranges from 0 to 24. Higher scores indicate more severe organ dysfunction and higher mortality risk.”
→ Consider replacing 'kidney' with 'renal' for consistency with the main text's 'renal' in the SOFA score description.
Inconsistency in terminology for kidney/renal.
MINORpunctuationTable 2 footnote b
“Defined as at least a 15% decrease of ferritin for patients with macrophage activation–like syndrome remaining decreased over follow-up time blood draws; and increase of the absolute number of human leukocyte antigen DR receptors to more than 8000 per CD45/CD14 monocyte remaining higher than these values over follow-up time blood draws. Patients not having at least 2 serial blood draws to confirm the permanence of the changes were considered not to have attained reversal of sepsis-induced organ dysfunction.”
→ The semicolon after 'blood draws' could be a period or a comma followed by 'and an' for better flow.
Punctuation could be improved for clarity.
MINORconsistencyTable 3 footnote a
“The serious treatment-emergent adverse events were classified by relationship to the study drug using Medra 27.0 for events captured during the 90 days of follow-up for the enrolled 276 patients. In the analysis, these adverse events were graded as probably related , which signifies strong time relationship to the drug or relapse if reinduced, and another etiology is improbable or clearly less probable; possibly related , strong time relationship to the drug and an alternative etiology is as probable or less probable; probably not related , slight or no time relationship to the drug and/or a more probable alternative etiology; and unrelated , causality by an underlying or concomitant disease or another pharmaceutical product, with no time relationship and a much more probable alternative etiology. Site investigator graded treatment-emergent adverse events.”
→ Ensure consistent spacing around commas and between the graded terms and their definitions (e.g., 'probably related,' vs 'probably related ').
Inconsistent spacing.
MINORtypoAbstract, Results
“93 females [33.7%]”
→ Ensure percentage is consistent with 93/276 = 33.7%.
Percentage appears correct.
MINORconsistencyTable 1
“SOFA score e 10 (7-12) 9 (6-11) Median (IQR) 10 (7-12) 9 (6-11)”
→ Remove duplicate line.
Duplicate row in table.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work is robust and well-reported, with only minor reporting gaps. An informed reader should weigh the vague data sharing statement and the minor internal discrepancy in a secondary endpoint count. These do not warrant a correction but suggest that the data sharing statement should be clarified in any future version or erratum.

1.
HIGHdata code
In the Data Sharing Statement section, replace 'See Supplement 4' with a concrete access route, such as a data access committee or repository, including contact details and conditions for access.
The current statement is vague and does not specify how data can be obtained, which is a reporting gap for a clinical trial.
2.
HIGHdata code
If possible, deposit de-identified aggregate data in a public repository with a DOI or accession number, and mention this in the Data Sharing Statement.
A public repository deposit would strengthen data availability and transparency.
3.
HIGHdata code
If custom analysis code was used, share it in a public repository with a persistent identifier and reference it in the Data Sharing Statement.
Code sharing is not mentioned, and providing it would enhance reproducibility.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Results section for the secondary endpoint '>=1.4-Point decrease of mean SOFA score d 2 to 15', reconcile the discrepancy between the text (51 of 131) and Table 2 (52 of 131).
The internal contradiction, though minor, could confuse readers and should be corrected in an erratum or clarified.
5.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Abstract Results, remove the unmatched closing parenthesis after '[33.7%]'.
The extra parenthesis is a punctuation error that should be fixed.
6.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In Methods, Randomization and Allocation, fix the hyphenation error 'vol-ume' to 'volume'.
The hyphenation error is a typographical issue that should be corrected.
7.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In Methods, Statistical Analyses, rephrase 'The primary analysis included all patients randomized, who did not withdraw their consent or requested removal of all data.' to 'The primary analysis included all randomized patients who did not withdraw their consent or request removal of all data.'
The original phrasing is awkward and could be clarified.
8.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In Table 1, remove the duplicate row for 'SOFA score e 10 (7-12) 9 (6-11)'.
The duplicate line is a formatting error that should be removed.
9.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In Table 2 footnote a, replace 'kidney' with 'renal' for consistency with the main text's SOFA score description.
Terminology inconsistency between the table and text should be harmonized.
10.
LOWcopyedit
In Methods, Trial Design, add 'and' before 'the General Data Protection Regulation' for better flow.
The conjunction improves readability.
11.
LOWcopyedit
In Table 1 footnotes, ensure consistent capitalization for sentence fragments (e.g., 'Self-reported', 'Refers', 'The').
Capitalization inconsistencies are minor but should be standardized.
12.
LOWcopyedit
In Table 2 footnote b, improve punctuation by replacing the semicolon after 'blood draws' with a period or comma for clarity.
The current punctuation is awkward and could be clarified.
13.
LOWcopyedit
In Table 3 footnote a, ensure consistent spacing around commas and between graded terms and their definitions.
Inconsistent spacing is a minor formatting issue.

Full text (67,197 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026

RigorReviewer 1

RigorReviewer 2

RigorPre-Submission Reviewer

CopyeditAgent Scribe

CitationsCitation Integrity

StatisticsStatistics Consistency

PreregistrationDeterministic check· no model (rule-based)

The star rating is the report’s one-glance summary. Every paper starts at 5★ and loses stars for the concrete problems the review finds — so a rating is never a vague average, it’s a running total you can read line by line under “How this rating was calculated.”

How stars are deducted

Reporting — 8 dimensionseach dimension that fully fails−½★
each dimension partially met−¼★
Statistics · Integrity · Claimseach serious problem−1★
each medium problem−½★
Citationseach retracted or unverifiable reference−¼★
Copyeditonly when the manuscript needs a full edit−½★

The rating never drops below 1★, and a demonstrable critical failure (an impossible statistic, a proven ethics violation) caps it at 1★ on its own — so the stars can never look healthy when the verdict is CRITICAL.

The rating draws on a panel of agents. Three independent Kaimen Rigor reviewers grade the eight dimensions below across several independent passes (the shown verdict is their majority vote — steadier than any single run), isolate the paper’s major claims and check its own evidence backs them, and flag integrity concerns. Alongside them, a citation agent resolves every reference against Crossref, OpenAlex, and Retraction Watch; a statistics agent recomputes reported tests; and rule-based checks verify that declared data/code links actually resolve. Full text is required — an abstract-only submission is not analyzed.

The eight reporting dimensions

Scientific PremisePrior work, rationale, and how it addresses gaps.

Study Design & RigorRandomization, blinding, power, controls, replication.

Biological VariablesSex, age, species/strain, housing, demographics.

Ethical ApprovalsIRB/IACUC approval, informed consent, regulatory compliance.

Key ResourcesAntibodies, cell lines, organisms, software — identified with persistent IDs.

Statistical ReportingNamed tests, exact p-values, effect sizes, plausible summary stats.

Data & Code AvailabilityAvailability statements, repositories, accession numbers, shared code.

Reporting TransparencyMethods, registration, guidelines, outcomes, limitations, funding/COI.

Graded against NIH, MDAR, ARRIVE 2.0, CONSORT, EQUATOR, and RRID guidelines. A dimension that doesn’t apply to the study type is skipped, never penalized.

This Kaimen Rigor review is model-assisted and is not a substitute for formal expert review. It complements human evaluation by surfacing potential methodological concerns — verify each finding against the source.

Precision Immunotherapy to Improve Sepsis Outcomes: The ImmunoSep Randomized Clinical Trial.

DOI

10.1001/jama.2025.24175

Record issued

2026-08-15

Engine

7.39.0

Exported

2026-09-20