ClarusC64/clinical-five-node-sepsis-cascade-boundary-v0.9
Clinical Five Node Sepsis Cascade Boundary (v0.9) What this repo does This dataset implements a Clarus v0.9 intervention-competition benchmark across a five-node sepsis cascade. Earlier dataset versions focused on detecting: deterioration regime transitions boundary proximity recovery feasibility v0.9 extends the ladder. The benchmark now evaluates whether a model can identify the correct rescue path when multiple interventions compete under narrowing rescue… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ClarusC64/clinical-five-node-sepsis-cascade-boundary-v0.9.
Clinical Five Node Sepsis Cascade Boundary (v0.9)
What this repo does
This dataset implements a Clarus v0.9 intervention-competition benchmark across a five-node sepsis cascade.
Earlier dataset versions focused on detecting:
- deterioration
- regime transitions
- boundary proximity
- recovery feasibility
v0.9 extends the ladder.
The benchmark now evaluates whether a model can identify the correct rescue path when multiple interventions compete under narrowing rescue windows.
This reflects real system decision geometry in cascading sepsis states.
In real systems:
- several plausible interventions may exist
- one intervention may have slightly higher structural leverage
- intervention rankings can change rapidly
- selecting the wrong path can waste the rescue window
v0.9 explicitly models intervention competition.
Core five-node cascade
The instability geometry is defined by five interacting variables.
These five variables define the local stability geometry of the sepsis cascade.
Example intervention competition scenario
A typical v0.9 row captures a situation where two or more rescue paths compete.
Example:
Primary intervention path
source_control_then_antibiotics_then_vasopressors
Secondary intervention path
fluids_then_vasopressors_then_source_control
Example signals
- interventionalignmentscore ≈ 0.82
- interventionleveragescore ≈ 0.79
- pathwaydivergencemargin ≈ 0.07
- interventioncompetitionratio ≈ 0.91
- rescuewindowwidth ≈ 0.24
Interpretation
- multiple plausible rescue paths exist
- the primary path has slightly stronger structural leverage
- the rescue window is narrowing
- selecting the wrong path risks losing recoverability
This geometry is exactly what the v0.9 benchmark tests.
Prediction target
Label column
label_sepsis_cascade_boundary_stabilization
Default rule
label = 1 if stabilization_success = 1 AND trajectory_shift < -0.10
Relaxed variant
label = 1 if stabilization_success = 1
Preferred v0.9 rule
label = 1 if stabilization_success = 1 \
AND trajectory_shift < -0.10 \
AND intervention_alignment_score >= 0.60
The v0.9 rule rewards correctly targeted rescue, not merely recovery.
Row structure
Each dataset row describes system geometry.
State variables
infection_load
physiologic_buffer
inflammatory_lag
hemodynamic_coupling
organ_coupling
Trajectory signals
drift_gradient
drift_velocity
drift_acceleration
Boundary signals
boundary_distance
secondary_boundary_distance
boundary_competition_ratio
Uncertainty signals
boundary_uncertainty
trajectory_uncertainty
intervention_uncertainty
Regime transition signals
regime_transition_score
transition_direction
regime_separation_margin
transition_uncertainty
transition_velocity
Intervention competition signals
intervention_leverage_score
intervention_alignment_score
rescue_window_width
pathway_divergence_margin
intervention_competition_ratio
primary_intervention_path
secondary_intervention_path
intervention_uncertainty
pathway_switch_velocity
Recovery signals
recovery_distance
recovery_gradient
return_feasibility
Perturbation signals
perturbation_radius
collapse_trigger
Delta signals
delta_infection_load
delta_physiologic_buffer
delta_inflammatory_lag
delta_hemodynamic_coupling
delta_organ_coupling
Outcome fields
trajectory_shift
minimal_intervention_path
stabilization_success
Label
label_sepsis_cascade_boundary_stabilization
Files
data/train.csv
Training rows including:
stabilization_success
label column
data/tester.csv
Evaluation rows excluding:
stabilization_success
label column
scorer.py
The scorer evaluates both classification accuracy and intervention reasoning.
Binary metrics
accuracy
precision
recall
f1
confusion_matrix
Primary v0.9 metrics
recall_correct_intervention_selection
false_effective_intervention_rate
Intervention competition diagnostics
primary_intervention_path_accuracy
secondary_intervention_path_accuracy
intervention_alignment_accuracy
high_uncertainty_intervention_miss_rate
rescue_window_miss_rate
intervention_competition_error
pathway_switch_misread_rate
benchmark_spec.json
Machine-readable dataset specification including:
schema
thresholds
signal groups
evaluation interface
Dataset construction
Dataset rows are generated in stages.
Stage 1 — baseline cascade state
Five-node variables are sampled to represent plausible sepsis cascade states.
Stage 2 — trajectory dynamics
Drift signals describe movement toward or away from instability.
Stage 3 — boundary and regime detection
Boundary and transition signals describe proximity to instability basins across the cascade.
Stage 4 — intervention competition modelling
Multiple intervention paths are generated.
For each candidate path:
intervention_alignment_score measures regime compatibility
intervention_leverage_score estimates trajectory impact
pathway_divergence_margin measures separation between paths
intervention_competition_ratio captures relative leverage
rescue_window_width represents remaining recoverability
The best path becomes:
primary_intervention_path
The second-best becomes:
secondary_intervention_path
Dataset limitations
This dataset models structural intervention geometry, not detailed intervention pharmacology.
Limitations include:
intervention_alignment_score represents structural compatibility rather than exact treatment efficacy
rescue_window_width represents geometric recoverability rather than clock time
intervention paths represent simplified bundles of actions
cascade coupling is structural and does not capture every bedside timing dependency
These abstractions allow intervention competition geometry to generalize across domains.
Intended use
This dataset is intended for:
research on intervention selection under instability
evaluating regime-aware reasoning systems
testing models under narrowing rescue windows
benchmarking control-style decision models
studying cascade-aware action selection in sepsis
This dataset is not intended for:
clinical decision support in patient care
treatment recommendation systems
medical device deployment
regulatory evaluation
It is a research benchmark.
Clarus ladder context
Clarus datasets follow an instability-geometry ladder.
v0.1 cascade detection
v0.2 trajectory awareness
v0.3 cascade forecasting
v0.4 boundary discovery
v0.5 recovery geometry
v0.6 intervention reasoning
v0.7 uncertainty-aware intervention
v0.8 regime transition geometry
v0.9 intervention competition geometry
v0.9 marks the transition toward control-layer reasoning benchmarks.
Structural note
Clarus benchmarks represent instability geometry directly.
This dataset frames collapse as competition between:
failure pressure
intervention leverage
rescue window narrowing
In a five-node cascade this produces a richer control problem than a simple classifier.
Production deployment
This benchmark structure helps models distinguish between:
a plausible intervention
the best intervention
a nearly tied but weaker intervention
an intervention that becomes obsolete as the rescue window closes
This geometry appears in many domains including:
sepsis deterioration monitoring
ICU escalation logic
infrastructure failure mitigation
supply chain disruption recovery
AI system stabilization protocols
Enterprise and research collaboration
The v0.9 intervention competition structure generalizes across domains where multiple rescue paths compete under instability pressure.
Possible extensions include:
septic shock escalation monitoring
respiratory deterioration modelling
multiorgan cascade control
infrastructure recovery planning
financial crisis intervention sequencing
AI system resilience benchmarking