ArticleScientific reports2026
Data-driven exploration of electronic nose technology to differentiate bacteria in blood cultures under biofilm-promoting conditions.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biofilms are a major cause of delayed wound healing, yet current biofilm identification methods are limited by invasiveness, processing times, or specificity. This study investigates the potential of metal-oxide electronic noses for identifying bacterial cultures of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecium, and Staphylococcus epidermidis grown in blood-based growth medium. We conducted in-vitro experiments to capture volatilome signatures from cultures grown under biofilm-promoting conditions and analyzed data using an interpretable machine learning workflow to disentangle algorithmic limitations from biological variability. This workflow incorporated feature extraction and selection, correlation-based clustering, and Shapley analysis. Six classification models were evaluated using cross-validation. Considering all five classes, classification accuracy reached at most 55.6%, which Shapley-based interpretation attributed mainly to biological factors: E. faecium and S. aureus exhibited high signal similarity to control samples and strong inter-day variability. Accuracy increased to 100.0% for species with distinct volatile signatures, and dimensionality reduction resulted in a model using two constructed features. These findings demonstrate that classification performance in biological sensing cannot be explained solely by algorithmic factors. Interpretable machine learning workflows help for distinguishing biological sources of complexity from algorithmic ones. We provide a proof-of-principle for electronic nose-based identification of bacterial growth under biofilm-promoting conditions.
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.