Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41810240›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026

Exploratory analysis of exhaled volatile organic compounds for binary discrimination between lung cancer, pneumonia, and healthy controls using machine learning.

Jing Wang, Haitian Li, Jianshen Yue, Yamei Song, Ning Wang, Wei Guo, Zhigang Cai

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jing WangDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, The People's Hospital of Hengshui, Hengshui, China.
Haitian LiDepartment of Infectious Disease, The People's Hospital of Hengshui, Hengshui, China.
Jianshen YueThe First Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, The People's Hospital of Cangzhou, Cangzhou, China.
Yamei SongDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, The People's Hospital of Hengshui, Hengshui, China.
Ning WangDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, The People's Hospital of Hengshui, Hengshui, China.
Wei GuoDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, The People's Hospital of Hengshui, Hengshui, China.
Zhigang CaiThe First Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer remains a major cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, while pneumonia is one of the most prevalent infectious diseases, with acute pneumonia being highly common globally. Despite continuous advancements in diagnostic technology and the successive launch of new anti-infective drugs, the incidence and mortality rates of pneumonia remain high. Exhaled breath volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been proposed as non-invasive indicators of disease-related metabolic and pathophysiological alterations. Lung cancer and pneumonia often present with similar nodules or consolidation shadows on chest imaging, leading to frequent diagnostic overlap and delays. This uncertainty can cause lung cancer patients to miss the optimal treatment window or result in unnecessary invasive examinations for pneumonia patients. The current gold standard for definitive diagnosis relies on invasive methods, but it has drawbacks such as operational risks, patient discomfort, radiation exposure, and high costs. Therefore, this study was designed as an exploratory, proof-of-concept investigation to examine whether VOC profiles exhibit distinguishable patterns between lung cancer, pneumonia, and healthy individuals using pairwise binary analytical approaches. Methods: Exhaled breath samples were collected from participants with lung cancer ( Results: Multiple VOCs demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups, although substantial overlap in distributions was observed. Compared with healthy controls, three VOCs (heptane, propane, 1-(methylthio)-, and styrene) showed lower levels and two VOCs (2-hexanone, 6-hydroxy- and o-xylene) showed higher levels in the lung cancer group. In the pneumonia group, six VOCs (1,4-pentadiene, toluene, butyl acetate, p-xylene, D-limonene, and isobutyl nonyl carbonate) were elevated, while one VOC (heptane, 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl-) was reduced compared with healthy controls. In pairwise comparisons between lung cancer and pneumonia, seven VOCs showed lower concentrations in the lung cancer group. With area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.980 for lung cancer versus healthy controls, 0.956 for pneumonia versus healthy controls, and 0.983 for lung cancer versus pneumonia. Conclusion: This exploratory study demonstrates that exhaled breath VOC profiles, analyzed via machine learning, yield statistically distinguishable signals in pairwise comparisons between lung cancer, pneumonia, and healthy individuals. These results provide preliminary evidence that breath analysis could address the critical clinical challenge of differentiating radiographically similar conditions non-invasively. The presented methodology and dataset establish a foundational framework for characterizing disease-specific metabolic signatures. However, the findings remain hypothesis-generating. Definitive evaluation of clinical utility necessitates subsequent studies employing multiclass modeling, validation in independent and prospective cohorts, and direct assessment of diagnostic impact in real-world triage scenarios.

Indexed as

exhaled breath analysisexploratory studylung cancermachine learningpneumoniavolatile organic compounds

Identifiers

PMID41810240
PMCPMC12968303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.