Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38730430›Full record

ArticleRespiratory research2024

Cross-site validation of lung cancer diagnosis by electronic nose with deep learning: a multicenter prospective study.

Meng-Rui Lee, Mu-Hsiang Kao, Ya-Chu Hsieh, Min Sun, Kea-Tiong Tang, Jann-Yuan Wang, Chao-Chi Ho, Jin-Yuan Shih, Chong-Jen Yu

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Smart nanoplatforms for early detection and immune modulation in lung cancer.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Meng-Rui LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Mu-Hsiang KaoDepartment. of Electrical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, No. 101, Sec. 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan.
Ya-Chu HsiehDepartment. of Electrical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, No. 101, Sec. 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan.
Min SunDepartment. of Electrical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, No. 101, Sec. 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan. sunmin@ee.nthu.edu.tw.
Kea-Tiong TangDepartment. of Electrical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, No. 101, Sec. 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013, Taiwan. kttang@ee.nthu.edu.tw.
Jann-Yuan WangDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chao-Chi HoDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Jin-Yuan ShihDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chong-Jen YuDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

National Taiwan University Hospital Hsin-Chu Branch 109-HCH034National Tsing Hua University 110F7MAHE1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough electronic nose (eNose) has been intensively investigated for diagnosing lung cancer, cross-site validation remains a major obstacle to be overcome and no studies have yet been performed.

methodsPatients with lung cancer, as well as healthy control and diseased control groups, were prospectively recruited from two referral centers between 2019 and 2022. Deep learning models for detecting lung cancer with eNose breathprint were developed using training cohort from one site and then tested on cohort from the other site. Semi-Supervised Domain-Generalized (Semi-DG) Augmentation (SDA) and Noise-Shift Augmentation (NSA) methods with or without fine-tuning was applied to improve performance.

resultsIn this study, 231 participants were enrolled, comprising a training/validation cohort of 168 individuals (90 with lung cancer, 16 healthy controls, and 62 diseased controls) and a test cohort of 63 individuals (28 with lung cancer, 10 healthy controls, and 25 diseased controls). The model has satisfactory results in the validation cohort from the same hospital while directly applying the trained model to the test cohort yielded suboptimal results (AUC, 0.61, 95% CI: 0.47─0.76). The performance improved after applying data augmentation methods in the training cohort (SDA, AUC: 0.89 [0.81─0.97]; NSA, AUC:0.90 [0.89─1.00]). Additionally, after applying fine-tuning methods, the performance further improved (SDA plus fine-tuning, AUC:0.95 [0.89─1.00]; NSA plus fine-tuning, AUC:0.95 [0.90─1.00]).

conclusionOur study revealed that deep learning models developed for eNose breathprint can achieve cross-site validation with data augmentation and fine-tuning. Accordingly, eNose breathprints emerge as a convenient, non-invasive, and potentially generalizable solution for lung cancer detection. CLINICAL

trial registrationThis study is not a clinical trial and was therefore not registered.

Indexed as

Deep LearningElectronic NoseLung NeoplasmsAdultAgedBreath TestsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsBreathprintCross-site validationData augmentationDeep learningElectronic noseLung cancer

Identifiers

PMID38730430
PMCPMC11084132

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.