ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Breath Prints for Diagnosing Asthma in Children.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolomic Approaches to Lung Function in Pediatric Asthma: A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Early Diagnosis of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia with E-Nose: A Pilot Study in Preterm Infants.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Electronic nose (e-nose) is a new technology applied for the identification of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in breath air. Measuring VOC in exhaled breath can adequately identify airway inflammation, especially in asthma. Its noninvasive character makes e-nose an attractive technology applicable in pediatrics. We hypothesized that an electronic nose could discriminate the breath prints of patients with asthma from controls. A cross-sectional study was conducted and included 35 pediatric patients. Eleven cases and seven controls formed the two training models (models A and B). Another nine cases and eight controls formed the external validation group. Exhaled breath samples were analyzed using Cyranose 320, Smith Detections, Pasadena, CA, USA. The discriminative ability of breath prints was investigated by principal component analysis (PCA) and canonical discriminative analysis (CDA). Cross-validation accuracy (CVA) was calculated. For the external validation step, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Duplicate sampling of exhaled breath was obtained for ten patients. E-nose was able to discriminate between the controls and asthmatic patient group with a CVA of 63.63% and an M-distance of 3.13 for model A and a CVA of 90% and an M-distance of 5.55 for model B in the internal validation step. In the second step of external validation, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were 64%, 77% and 50%, respectively, for model A, and 58%, 66% and 50%, respectively, for model B. Between paired breath sample fingerprints, there were no significant differences. An electronic nose can discriminate pediatric patients with asthma from controls, but the accuracy obtained in the external validation was lower than the CVA obtained in the internal validation step.
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.