ArticlePloS one2025
Examination of unique volatile organic compound signatures in nasopharyngeal test swab viral transport media using an electronic nose.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Rhinology: A State-of-the-Art Review of Clinical Readiness and Implementation Pathways.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid point of care tests for respiratory infections are associated with high rates of false negative results which can drive empiric, and potentially inappropriate, antibiotic use. Because infectious pathogens alter VOC composition, unique VOC signatures in biospecimens hold the potential to discriminate bacterial and viral infections from uninfected controls. One approach for rapid identification of respiratory pathogens is the electronic nose (e-nose), a sensor device that uses artificial intelligence to recognize disease-specific patterns in VOC profiles of gaseous mixtures. In this preclinical proof of concept study, we tested the validity of an e-nose to discriminate PCR-confirmed cases of infection with three viral pathogens (SARS-CoV-2, RSV, influenza A) from uninfected controls using nasopharyngeal test swab media. Using exploratory factor analysis, the e-nose discriminated both influenza A and SAR-CoV-2 from uninfected controls. To assess sensitivity and specificity, we applied factor analysis-based threshold values and obtained high levels of sensitivity (96.30%) and specificity (90.62%) for influenza A and more modest levels for SARS-CoV-2 (sensitivity=75%, specificity=68.57%). We did not apply threshold values to RSV samples because the e-nose sensors showed low discriminatory power for that pathogen. Our findings support proof of concept of the validity of the e-nose to discriminate common viral respiratory pathogens. Our use of binary thresholds for influenza A, which are easily adapted to point-of-care settings, yielded superior sensitivity results and comparable specificity results when compared to rapid tests. We recommend that future studies apply our analytic approach to samples of human breath to determine if these findings can be replicated or improved.
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.