ArticleHeliyon2024
A multi-omics method for breast cancer diagnosis based on metabolites in exhaled breath, ultrasound imaging, and basic clinical information.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
- Real-Time Breath Diagnostics: Linking Molecular Pathways, Measurement Technologies, and Clinical Translation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Illuminating diabetesWorld journal of diabetes · 2025Review
- Innovative Approaches to Early Detection of Cancer-Transforming Screening for Breast, Lung, and Hard-to-Screen Cancers.Cancers · 2025Review
- Development and validation of an intratumoral-peritumoral deep transfer learning fusion model for differentiating BI-RADS 3-4 breast nodules.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Utility of Volatile Organic Compounds and Electronic Nose Technology for Breast Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2025Review
- Salivary Metabolites in Breast Cancer and Fibroadenomas: Focus on Menopausal Status and BMI.Metabolites · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Through a nested cohort study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of breath-omics in differentiating between benign and malignant breast lesions, and assessed the diagnostic performance of a multi-omics approach that combines breath-omics, ultrasound radiomics, and clinic-omics in distinguishing between benign and malignant breast lesions. Materials and methods: We recruited 1,723 consecutive patients who underwent an automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) examination. Breath samples were collected and analyzed by high-pressure photon ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (HPPI-TOF-MS) to obtain breath-omics features. 238 of 1,723 enrolled participants have received pathological confirmation of breast nodules finally. The breast lesions of the 238 participants were contoured manually based on ABVS images for ultrasound radiomics feature calculation. Then, single- and multi-omics models were constructed and evaluated for breast nodules diagnosis via five-fold cross-validation. Results: The area under the curve (AUC) of the breath-omics model was 0.855. In comparison, the multi-omics model demonstrated superior diagnostic performance for breast cancer, with sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 84.1 %, 89.9 %, and 0.946, respectively. The multi-omics performance was comparable to that of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification via senior ultrasound physician evaluation. Conclusion: The multi-omics approach combining metabolites in exhaled breath, ultrasound imaging, and basic clinical information exhibits superior diagnostic performance and promises to be a non-invasive and reliable tool for breast cancer diagnosis.
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.