ArticlePloS one2009
Bio-benchmarking of electronic nose sensors.
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Portable Analytical Techniques for Monitoring Volatile Organic Chemicals in Biomanufacturing Processes: Recent Advances and Limitations.Frontiers in chemistry · 2020Review
- A Functional Agonist of Insect Olfactory Receptors: Behavior, Physiology and Structure.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2019Article
- Comparative Genomics Reveals Thousands of Novel Chemosensory Genes and Massive Changes in Chemoreceptor Repertories across Chelicerates.Genome biology and evolution · 2018Article
- Data reconstruction using iteratively reweighted L1-principal component analysis for an electronic nose system.PloS one · 2018Article
- More than apples and oranges--detecting cancer with a fruit fly's antenna.Scientific reports · 2014Article
- Article
- Article
- Primary culture of embryonic rat olfactory receptor neurons.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2012Article
- Article
- Behavioural and genetic evidence for C. elegans' ability to detect volatile chemicals associated with explosives.PloS one · 2010Article
- Metal oxide sensors for electronic noses and their application to food analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic noses, E-Noses, are instruments designed to reproduce the performance of animal noses or antennae but generally they cannot match the discriminating power of the biological original and have, therefore, been of limited utility. The manner in which odorant space is sampled is a critical factor in the performance of all noses but so far it has been described in detail only for the fly antenna. METHODOLOGY: Here we describe how a set of metal oxide (MOx) E-Nose sensors, which is the most commonly used type, samples odorant space and compare it with what is known about fly odorant receptors (ORs). PRINCIPAL
findingsCompared with a fly's odorant receptors, MOx sensors from an electronic nose are on average more narrowly tuned but much more highly correlated with each other. A set of insect ORs can therefore sample broader regions of odorant space independently and redundantly than an equivalent number of MOx sensors. The comparison also highlights some important questions about the molecular nature of fly ORs.
conclusionsThe comparative approach generates practical learnings that may be taken up by solid-state physicists or engineers in designing new solid-state electronic nose sensors. It also potentially deepens our understanding of the performance of the biological system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.