ArticleERJ open research2023
Enhanced real-time mass spectrometry breath analysis for the diagnosis of COVID-19.
Article in ERJ open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review of breath analysis in detection of COVID-19 through Volatile organic compounds.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2024Pooled it
- Real-Time Breath Diagnostics: Linking Molecular Pathways, Measurement Technologies, and Clinical Translation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Opportunities and Challenges in Gas Sensor Technologies for Accurate Detection of COVID-19.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Combination of real-time and hyphenated mass spectrometry for improved characterisation of exhaled breath biomarkers in clinical research.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024Article
- ERS International Congress 2023: highlights from the Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly.ERJ open research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although rapid screening for and diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still urgently needed, most current testing methods are long, costly or poorly specific. The objective of the present study was to determine whether or not artificial-intelligence-enhanced real-time mass spectrometry breath analysis is a reliable, safe, rapid means of screening ambulatory patients for COVID-19. Methods: In two prospective, open, interventional studies in a single university hospital, we used real-time, proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry to perform a metabolomic analysis of exhaled breath from adults requiring screening for COVID-19. Artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques were used to build mathematical models based on breath analysis data either alone or combined with patient metadata. Results: We obtained breath samples from 173 participants, of whom 67 had proven COVID-19. After using machine learning algorithms to process breath analysis data and further enhancing the model using patient metadata, our method was able to differentiate between COVID-19-positive and -negative participants with a sensitivity of 98%, a specificity of 74%, a negative predictive value of 98%, a positive predictive value of 72% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.961. The predictive performance was similar for asymptomatic, weakly symptomatic and symptomatic participants and was not biased by COVID-19 vaccination status. Conclusions: Real-time, noninvasive, artificial-intelligence-enhanced mass spectrometry breath analysis might be a reliable, safe, rapid, cost-effective, high-throughput method for COVID-19 screening.
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.