ArticlePloS one2025
Towards robust medical machine olfaction: Debiasing GC-MS data enhances prostate cancer diagnosis from urine volatiles.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Olfactory Science and Technology in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: From Invertebrate Models to Artificial Intelligence.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is a major, and increasingly global, health concern with current screening and diagnostic tools' severe limitations causing unnecessary, invasive biopsy procedures. While gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) has been used to detect urinary volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with PCa, efforts to identify consistent molecular biomarkers have failed to generalize across studies. Inspired by the olfactory diagnostic capabilities of medical detection dogs, we do not reduce chromatograms to a list of compounds and concentrations. Instead, we deploy a machine learning approach that bypasses molecular identification: PCa "scent character" signatures are extracted from raw time series data transformed into image representations for classification via convolutional neural networks. To address confounding factors such as sample-source bias, we implement a multi-step pre-processing and debiasing pipeline, including empirical Bayes correction, baseline drift removal, and domain adversarial learning. The resulting model achieves classification performance on par with similarly trained canines, achieving a recall of 88% and an F1-score of 0.78. These findings demonstrate that, at least in the context of PCa detection from urine, machine learning-based scent signature analysis can serve as a fully non-invasive diagnostic alternative, with these early results being also relevant to the wider emergent field of medical machine olfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.