ArticleScientific reports2017
Screening of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome by Electronic-Nose Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exhaled breath volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detection methods: GC-MS versus eNose in COPD diagnosis-a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Exhaled Breath Analysis in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: A Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Pooled it
- A Review on Long COVID Screening: Challenges and Perspectives Focusing on Exhaled Breath Gas Sensing.ACS sensors · 2025Review
- A noninvasive strategy for multi-disease diagnosis via multi-sensor platform: integrative analysis of five years of exhaled breath-based diagnostics for seven diseases.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Phenotypes and Comorbidity: A Data-Driven, Pattern Recognition Approach Using National Representative Data from the United States.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The smell of lung disease: a review of the current status of electronic nose technology.Respiratory research · 2021Review
- BIONOTE as an Innovative Biosensor for Measuring Endocannabinoid Levels.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Gut Microbiota and Related Electronic Multisensorial System Changes in Subjects With Symptomatic Uncomplicated Diverticular Disease Undergoing Rifaximin Therapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- The Role of Electronic Noses in Phenotyping Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Biosensors · 2020Review
- Voltammetric analysis for distinguishing portal hypertension-related from malignancy-related ascites: A proof of concept study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Sensors for detecting pulmonary diseases from exhaled breath.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS) carries important social and economic implications. Once the suspicion of OSAS has arisen, Polysomnography (PSG) represents the diagnostic gold standard. However, about 45% of people who have undergone PSG are free from OSAS. Thus, efforts should be made to improve the selection of subjects. We verified whether the pattern of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) helps to select patients amenable to PSG. We studied 136 subjects (20 obese non-OSAS, 20 hypoxic OSAS, 20 non-hypoxic OSAS, and 20 non-hypoxic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) vs 56 healthy controls) without any criteria of exclusion for comorbidity to deal with a real-life population. VOCs patterns were analyzed using electronic-nose (e-nose) technology. A Discriminant Analysis (Partial Least Square-Discriminant Analysis) was performed to predict respiratory functions and PSG parameters. E-nose distinguished controls (100% correct classification) from others and identified 60% of hypoxic, and 35% of non-hypoxic OSAS patients. Similarly, it identified 60% of COPD patients. One-by-one group comparison yielded optimal discrimination of OSAS vs controls and of COPD vs controls (100% correct classification). In conclusion, e-nose technology applied to breath-analysis can discriminate non-respiratory from respiratory diseased populations in real-life multimorbid populations and exclude OSAS. If confirmed, this evidence may become pivotal for screening purposes.
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.