ArticleScientific reports2026
Exhaled breath volatiles for asthma diagnosis: discovery and validation in untreated but symptomatic patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Abstract
Approximately 30% of people with a clinical diagnosis of asthma do not have the condition. Exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) hold promise for non-invasive asthma testing; however, discovery of breath biomarkers is confounded by high biological and technical variability. We collected repeated breath samples from symptomatic patients being tested for asthma before starting treatment. Background samples were collected immediately before patient sampling to characterize VOCs present in the preconditioned inspired airstream. VOCs were measured by thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Data from two cohorts (n = 62, 53) were processed independently and used as training and validation datasets. VOCs were classified as breath-enriched or ambiguous based on comparison between breath and background abundance using Wilcoxon test and log fold change. Associations between breath VOCs and diagnosis were tested with univariate mixed-effect models and multivariate classification models. Here we show that background has significant effect on breath VOC abundance in 60% of identified compounds. Breath VOCs show high inter-session and inter-patient variability, reflected by increase in multivariate model classification error in cross-validation (37%) and validation (52%) cohorts. Among VOCs positively associated with asthma, 30% are breath-enriched. Ethyl butanoate, 2-methylfuran and 3-methylpentane show consistent discrimination performance across the cohorts. When used in conjunction with clinical tests, these breath VOCs have comparable contribution to asthma prediction accuracy to established clinical diagnostics such as fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Measuring exhaled VOCs could add value to diagnosis of asthma based on routine clinical tests. However, developing measures to limit technical variation in breath analysis is needed to support discovery and clinical translation of such biomarkers.
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.