Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterised by substantial physiological heterogeneity, which contribute to a very variable clinical outcomes and therefore inconsistent responses to ventilatory strategies. We aimed to externally validate physiological ARDS subphenotypes previously identified using routine ventilatory and gas-exchange variables, assess their prognostic relevance across independent cohorts, and examine heterogeneity of treatment effect according to PEEP strategy.

Methods Unsupervised Gaussian Mixture Modelling was used to identify physiological subphenotypes based on ventilatory mechanics and gas-exchange parameters. Labels were subsequently used to train and validate supervised classifiers using XGBoost. Prognostic relevance was assessed across three independent cohorts, including two randomised controlled trials (ALVEOLI and LOVS). Predictive enrichment for PEEP strategy was evaluated using individual patient data from ALVEOLI and LOVS (n = 1,532) using intention-to-treat analyses, applying both one-stage and two-stage fixed-effects IPD meta-analytic approaches to test for interaction between physiological subphenotype and PEEP strategy.

Results Two distinct physiological subphenotypes, termed Efficient and Restrictive, were replicated across independent cohorts. Across each cohort, patients classified as Restrictive consistently exhibited higher all-cause 28-day mortality compared to Efficient patients. When pooled across studies, the Restrictive subphenotype was associated with a significantly increased risk of death (pooled odds ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.36–2.24), with no evidence of between-study heterogeneity. Predictive analyses showed a statistically significant interaction between physiological subphenotype and PEEP strategy in the one-stage IPD model (p for interaction = 0.037), with concordant findings in the two-stage fixed-effects IPD meta-analysis (interaction OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.00–3.66; I2 = 0%). Higher PEEP was associated with increased mortality in Efficient patients and reduced mortality in Restrictive patients, indicating effect modification by physiological subphenotype.

Interpretation Physiological ARDS subphenotypes derived from routinely collected bedside data provide robust and externally validated prognostic stratification across observational and randomised trial cohorts. The observed interaction with PEEP strategy suggests that underlying physiological profiles may influence treatment response, supporting the concept that physiology-based be a starting point for personalized medicine and therefore better ventilatory strategies in future clinical trials.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This work was supported by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID), Chile, through the National PhD Scholarship (ANID Scholarship No. 21220211).

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Medical Ethics Review Committee of Amsterdam University Medical Centers waived ethical approval for this work, as the study does not fall under the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) (reference number 2024.0235).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors