ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2025
Electronic nose for detecting abnormal glucose metabolism in heart transplant recipients.
Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) affects up to 34% of heart transplant recipients (HTR) within five years, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Although the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is the most sensitive method for detecting prediabetes and diabetes, it is burdensome. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of exhaled breath analysis using an electronic nose (eNose) as a non-invasive alternative for detecting prediabetes or PTDM.
methodsHTR > one year post-transplant undergoing OGTT were included, along with fasting HTR with known PTDM as a control group. Exhaled breath was analyzed before glucose loading using the SpiroNose. Diagnostic performance of eNose parameters alone and combined with clinical variables was assessed using multivariate logistic regression.
resultsSeventy-six HTR were included (29% female, median age 56 years, median 7.8 years post-transplant). Of these, 18 had normal glucose tolerance, 33 had prediabetes, and 25 had PTDM (including 8 newly diagnosed). Overall, 76% had prediabetes or PTDM. eNose alone differentiated normal from abnormal glucose tolerance (prediabetes or PTDM) with an AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.57-0.83), 68% accuracy, 69% sensitivity, 67% specificity, 40% negative predictive value (NPV), and 87% positive predictive value (PPV). Combining eNose with clinical parameters improved diagnostic performance (AUROC 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.96), achieving 78% accuracy, 71% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 51% NPV, and 100% PPV.
conclusionsPrediabetes or PTDM is common in HTR. eNose technology, especially when combined with clinical data, shows promise as a non-invasive screening tool with high specificity and PPV. This approach may reduce OGTT burden, pending further 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.