ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2014
Expiratory flow rate, breath hold and anatomic dead space influence electronic nose ability to detect lung cancer.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Exhaled Breath Analysis in Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnosis of tuberculosis through breath test: A systematic review.EBioMedicine · 2019Pooled it
- The investigation of the volatile metabolites of lung cancer from the microenvironment of malignant pleural effusion.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- A Study of Diagnostic Accuracy Using a Chemical Sensor Array and a Machine Learning Technique to Detect Lung Cancer.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Trial
- Collection methods of exhaled volatile organic compounds for lung cancer screening and diagnosis: a systematic review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
- Electronic Noses: From Gas-Sensitive Components and Practical Applications to Data Processing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Advancing accuracy in breath testing for lung cancer: strategies for improving diagnostic precision in imbalanced data.Respiratory research · 2024Article
- Potential for Early Noninvasive COVID-19 Detection Using Electronic-Nose Technologies and Disease-Specific VOC Metabolic Biomarkers.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Exhaled Biomarkers for Point-of-Care Diagnosis: Recent Advances and New Challenges in Breathomics.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Non-Invasive Lung Cancer Diagnostics through Metabolites in Exhaled Breath: Influence of the Disease Variability and Comorbidities.Metabolites · 2023Article
- The accuracy of an electronic nose to diagnose tuberculosis in patients referred to an expert centre.PloS one · 2023Article
- Exhaled Air Metabolome Analysis for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Fingerprints Identification-The Preliminary Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Exhaled metabolic markers and relevant dysregulated pathways of lung cancer: a pilot study.Annals of medicine · 2022Article
- The Use of Breath Analysis in the Management of Lung Cancer: Is It Ready for Primetime?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Fast and noninvasive electronic nose for sniffing out COVID-19 based on exhaled breath-print recognition.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- The Potential Use of Volatile Biomarkers for Malaria Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Virus-induced Volatile Organic Compounds Are Detectable in Exhaled Breath during Pulmonary Infection.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
- Breathing Rhythm Variations during Wash-In Do Not Influence Exhaled Volatile Organic Compound Profile Analyzed by an Electronic Nose.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Role of Electronic Noses in Phenotyping Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Biosensors · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic noses are composites of nanosensor arrays. Numerous studies showed their potential to detect lung cancer from breath samples by analysing exhaled volatile compound pattern ("breathprint"). Expiratory flow rate, breath hold and inclusion of anatomic dead space may influence the exhaled levels of some volatile compounds; however it has not been fully addressed how these factors affect electronic nose data. Therefore, the aim of the study was to investigate these effects.
methods37 healthy subjects (44 ± 14 years) and 27 patients with lung cancer (60 ± 10 years) participated in the study. After deep inhalation through a volatile organic compound filter, subjects exhaled at two different flow rates (50 ml/sec and 75 ml/sec) into Teflon-coated bags. The effect of breath hold was analysed after 10 seconds of deep inhalation. We also studied the effect of anatomic dead space by excluding this fraction and comparing alveolar air to mixed (alveolar + anatomic dead space) air samples. Exhaled air samples were processed with Cyranose 320 electronic nose.
resultsExpiratory flow rate, breath hold and the inclusion of anatomic dead space significantly altered "breathprints" in healthy individuals (p < 0.05), but not in lung cancer (p > 0.05). These factors also influenced the discrimination ability of the electronic nose to detect lung cancer significantly.
conclusionsWe have shown that expiratory flow, breath hold and dead space influence exhaled volatile compound pattern assessed with electronic nose. These findings suggest critical methodological recommendations to standardise sample collections for electronic nose measurements.
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.