ArticleScientific reports2024
Non-invasive multiple cancer screening using trained detection canines and artificial intelligence: a prospective double-blind study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantification of EV-associated miRNA in liquid biopsies for biomarker signature development.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2026Review
- Precision Oncology: Current Landscape, Emerging Trends, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Cells · 2025Review
- Innovative Approaches to Early Detection of Cancer-Transforming Screening for Breast, Lung, and Hard-to-Screen Cancers.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The specificity and sensitivity of a simple non-invasive multi-cancer screening method in detecting breast, lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer in breath samples were evaluated in a double-blind study. Breath samples of 1386 participants (59.7% males, median age 56.0 years) who underwent screening for cancer using gold-standard screening methods, or a biopsy for a suspected malignancy were collected. The samples were analyzed using a bio-hybrid platform comprising trained detection canines and artificial intelligence tools. According to cancer screening/biopsy results, 1048 (75.6%) were negative for cancer and 338 (24.4%) were positive. Among the 338 positive samples, 261 (77.2%) were positive for one of the four cancer types that the bio-hybrid platform was trained to detect, with an overall sensitivity and specificity of 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90.3-96.2%) and 94.3% (95% CI 92.7%-95.5%), respectively. The sensitivity of each cancer type was similar; breast: 95.0% (95% CI 87.8-98.0%), lung: 95.0% (95% CI 87.8-98.0%), colorectal: 90.0% (95% CI 74.4-96.5%), prostate: 93.0% (95% CI 84.6-97.0%). The sensitivity of 14 other malignant tumors that the bio-hybrid platform was not trained to detect, but identified, was 81.8% (95% CI 71.8%-88.8%). Early cancer (0-2) detection sensitivity was 94.8% (95% CI 91.0%-97.1%). This bio-hybrid multi-cancer screening platform demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity and enables early-stage cancer detection.
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.