Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34841237›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2021

A method for the identification of COVID-19 biomarkers in human breath using Proton Transfer Reaction Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry.

Aikaterini Liangou, Antonios Tasoglou, Heinz J Huber, Christopher Wistrom, Kevin Brody, Prahlad G Menon, Thomas Bebekoski, Kevin Menschel, Marlise Davidson-Fiedler, Karl DeMarco and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Aikaterini LiangouRJ Lee Group Inc., Monroeville, PA, USA.
Antonios TasoglouRJ Lee Group Inc., Monroeville, PA, USA.
Heinz J HuberEdelweiss Technology Solutions LLC, Novelty, OH, USA.
Christopher WistromMercyhealth, Janesville, WI, USA.
Kevin BrodyHenry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Prahlad G MenonQuantMD, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Thomas BebekoskiHenry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Kevin MenschelHenry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Marlise Davidson-FiedlerHenry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.
Karl DeMarcoMercyhealth, Janesville, WI, USA.
Harshad SalphaleRJ Lee Group Inc., Monroeville, PA, USA.
Jonathan WistromPractical Sustainbility LLC, Maryville, MO, USA.
Skyler WistromPractical Sustainbility LLC, Maryville, MO, USA.
Richard J LeeRJ Lee Group Inc., Monroeville, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 has caused a worldwide pandemic, making the early detection of the virus crucial. We present an approach for the determination of COVID-19 infection based on breath analysis.

methodsA high sensitivity mass spectrometer was combined with artificial intelligence and used to develop a method for the identification of COVID-19 in human breath within seconds. A set of 1137 positive and negative subjects from different age groups, collected in two periods from two hospitals in the USA, from 26 August, 2020 until 15 September, 2020 and from 11 September, 2020 until 11 November, 2020, was used for the method development. The subjects exhaled in a Tedlar bag, and the exhaled breath samples were subsequently analyzed using a Proton Transfer Reaction Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer (PTR-ToF-MS). The produced mass spectra were introduced to a series of machine learning models. 70% of the data was used for these sub-models' training and 30% was used for testing.

findingsA set of 340 samples, 95 positives and 245 negatives, was used for the testing. The combined models successfully predicted 77 out of the 95 samples as positives and 199 out of the 245 samples as negatives. The overall accuracy of the model was 81.2%. Since over 50% of the total positive samples belonged to the age group of over 55 years old, the performance of the model in this category was also separately evaluated on 339 subjects (170 negative and 169 positive). The model correctly identified 166 out of the 170 negatives and 164 out of the 169 positives. The model accuracy in this case was 97.3%.

interpretationThe results showed that this method for the identification of COVID-19 infection is a promising tool, which can give fast and accurate results.

Identifiers

PMID34841237
PMCPMC8604657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.