ArticleScientific reports2025
Determination of lung cancer exhaled breath biomarkers using machine learning-a new analysis framework.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lipid metabolism-related gene expression predicts prognostic outcomes in lung adenocarcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Urinary Volatilomic Signatures for Non-Invasive Detection of Lung Cancer: A HS-SPME/GC-MS Proof-of-Concept Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Respiratory omics for early detection of COPD-to-lung cancer transition: mechanisms, biomarkers and clinical translation.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Breath-based lung cancer detection using an ML-driven low-cost sensor array.Scientific reports · 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
Exhaled breath samples of lung cancer patients (LC), tuberculosis (TB) patients and asymptomatic controls (C) were analyzed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Ten volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified as possible biomarkers after confounders were statistically eliminated to enhance biomarker specificity. The diagnostic potential of these possible biomarkers was evaluated using multiple machine learning models and their performance for classifying patients and controls was compared. Partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) emerged as the best-performing model for separating lung cancer from controls, with a recall (sensitivity) of 82%, precision of 90%, accuracy of 80% and F1-score of 86%. To further validate this model, TB data was introduced as a confounding disease, and the model achieved precision, recall, accuracy and F1-score of 88% each, in distinguishing lung cancer from TB. These findings address the inter-disease variability and underscores the reliability of the reported VOCs as potential biomarkers of lung cancer. This study establishes a new framework integrating machine learning and confounder elimination for biomarker confirmation.
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.