ArticleBiosensors2025
Development of Electronic Nose as a Complementary Screening Tool for Breath Testing in Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Biosensors, 2025. 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.
- Recent Advances and Unaddressed Challenges in Biomimetic Olfactory- and Taste-Based Biosensors: Moving Towards Integrated, AI-Powered, and Market-Ready Sensing Systems.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Colorectal Cancer Detection Through Sweat Volatilome Using an Electronic Nose System and GC-MS Analysis.Cancers · 2025Article
- Residential Proximity Land Use Characteristics and Exhaled Volatile Organic Compounds' Impact on Pulmonary Function in Asthmatic Children.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Article
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
Abstract
(1) Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death, while early detection decreases incidence and mortality. Current screening programs involving fecal immunological testing and colonoscopy commonly bring about unnecessary colonoscopies, which adds burden to healthcare systems. The objective of this study was to provide an assessment of the diagnostic performance of an electronic nose serving as a complementary screening tool to improve current screening programs in clinical settings. (2) Methods: We conducted a case-control study that included patients from a medical center with colorectal cancer and non-colorectal cancer controls. We analyzed the composition of volatile organic compounds in their exhaled breath using the electronic nose. We then used machine learning algorithms to develop predictive models and provided the estimated accuracy and reliability of the breath testing. (3) Results: We enrolled 77 patients, with 40 cases and 37 controls. The area under the curve, Kappa coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity of the selected model were 0.87 (95% CI 0.76-0.95), 0.66 (95% CI 0.49-0.83), 0.81, and 0.85. For subjects at an early stage of disease, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 and 0.85. Excluding smokers, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.88 and 0.92. (4) Conclusions: This study highlights the promising potential of breath testing using an electronic nose for enabling early detection and reducing unnecessary treatments. However, more independent data for external validation are required to ensure applicability and generalizability.
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.