ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Detection of
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial peptides for tuberculosis in a post-antibiotic era: from in vitro promise to therapeutic potential.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paratuberculosis is a debilitating disease of ruminants that causes significant economic loss in both cattle and sheep. Early detection of the disease is crucial to controlling the disease; however, current diagnostic tests lack sensitivity. This study evaluated the potential for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected by gas chromatography and an electronic nose (eNose) for use as diagnostic tools to differentiate between Map-infected and non-infected cattle and sheep. Solid-phase micro-extraction gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (SPME GC-MS) was used to quantify VOCs from the headspace of faecal samples (cattle and sheep), and partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was used to determine the suitability as a diagnostic tool. Both the cattle and sheep models had high specificity and sensitivity, 98.1% and 92.3%, respectively, in cattle, and both were 100% in sheep. The eNose was also able to discriminate between Map-infected and non-infected sheep and cattle with 88.9% specificity and 100% sensitivity in sheep and 100% specificity and sensitivity in cattle. This is the first time that VOC analysis by eNose and GCMS has been used for identification of Map in cattle and sheep faeces. GCMS also allowed the identification of putative disease biomarkers, and the eNose diagnostic capability suggests it is a promising tool for point-of-care diagnosis for Map detection on farms.
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.