ArticleJournal of breath research2017
Integrating exhaled breath diagnostics by disease-sniffing dogs with instrumental laboratory analysis.
Article in Journal of breath research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- How do cancer-sniffing dogs sort biological samples? Exploring case-control samples with non-targeted LC-Orbitrap, GC-MS, and immunochemistry methods.Journal of breath research · 2019Article
- Targeted GC-MS analysis of firefighters' exhaled breath: Exploring biomarker response at the individual level.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2019Article
- Can we use human odors to diagnose malaria?Future microbiology · 2019Article
- Evolution of clinical and environmental health applications of exhaled breath research: Review of methods and instrumentation for gas-phase, condensate, and aerosols.Analytica chimica acta · 2018Review
- Exhaled breath aerosol (EBA): the simplest non-invasive medium for public health and occupational exposure biomonitoring.Journal of breath research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Dogs have been studied for many years as a medical diagnostic tool to detect a pre-clinical disease state by sniffing emissions directly from a human or an in vitro biological sample. Some of the studies report high sensitivity and specificity in blinded case-control studies. However, in these studies it is completely unknown as to which suites of chemicals the dogs detect and how they ultimately interpret this information amidst confounding background odors. Herein, we consider the advantages and challenges of canine olfaction for early (meaningful) detection of cancer, and propose an experimental concept to narrow the molecular signals used by the dog for sample classification to laboratory-based instrumental analysis. This serves two purposes; first, in contrast to dogs, analytical methods could be quickly up-scaled for high throughput sampling. Second, the knowledge gained from identifying probative chemicals could be helpful in learning more about biochemical pathways and disease progression. We focus on exhaled breath aerosol, arguing that the semi-volatile fraction should be given more attention. Ultimately, we conclude that the interaction between dog-based and instrument-based research will be mutually beneficial and accelerate progress towards early detection of cancer by breath analysis.
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.