ArticleRespirology (Carlton, Vic.)2026
Few-Shot Lung Cancer Classification via Electronic Nose Using Large Language Models: A Multicentre Prospective Study.
Article in Respirology (Carlton, Vic.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Few Labels, Many Breaths: Adapting Electronic Noses for Lung Cancer Detection.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2026Article
- Few-Shot Lung Cancer Classification via Electronic Nose Using Large Language Models: A Multicentre Prospective Study.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveElectronic Nose (eNose) breathprints are promising non-invasive lung cancer diagnostic tools, but cross-site validation and adaptation remain barriers to clinical applications. It remains unknown whether a natural language processing-pretrained large language model (LLM) can enable few-shot, site-specific classification of lung cancer using eNose breathprints.
methodsWe collected eNose breathprints of lung cancer and non-lung cancer patients from two medical centres in Taiwan. A GPT-2-backbone LLM with parameter-efficient adaptation was compared with convolutional neural networks (CNN) trained from scratch or pretrained on CIFAR-100. Few-shot protocols (2-6 shots per class) and full-data training were evaluated.
resultsWe collected 432 eNose breathprints from two sites (S1 and S2). With 6 labelled samples per class (6 shots), LLM achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.87), sensitivity of 0.74 (0.63-0.83), and specificity of 0.77 (0.67-0.87) on S1. On S2, it achieved an AUC of 0.76 (0.69-0.82), sensitivity of 0.77 (0.69-0.84), and specificity of 0.61 (0.51-0.70). LLM outperforms scratch CNN models (S1; AUC: 0.44, p = 0.0002) (S2; AUC: 0.63, p = 0.0198) and CNN pretrained on CIFAR-100 images (S1; AUC: 0.57, p = 0.0100) and (S2; AUC: 0.61, p = 0.0248). LLM or a CNN model trained on the source site fails to improve performance after transferring to the target site for fine-tuning; for the LLM, performance even deteriorates.
conclusionOur study demonstrates the potential of pretrained LLMs for few-shot lung cancer classification in a real-world mixed clinical cohort, reducing dependence on large training datasets.
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.