ArticleMedComm2026
Complementary Breath Profiling Using eNose and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for Noninvasive Triage of Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules.
Article in MedComm, 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
Breath analysis may improve the noninvasive triage of CT-detected pulmonary nodules. We prospectively evaluated two complementary breath platforms, an electronic nose (eNose) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), in patients with newly detected nodules. The eNose cohort included 89 participants (55 malignant and 34 benign), and the GC-MS cohort included 75 participants (52 malignant and 23 benign). For each platform, three logistic regression models were assessed: clinical-only, biomarker-only, and combined clinical + biomarker. For eNose, apparent discrimination improved from the clinical-only model (AUC 0.67; misclassification rate [MCR] 40.4%) to the sensor-only model (AUC 0.86; MCR 22.5%), with further improvement in the combined clinical + sensor model (AUC 0.88; MCR 22.5%). Internal validation showed attenuation, with the combined eNose model achieving a leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) AUC of 0.67. For GC-MS, LASSO logistic regression showed strong apparent discrimination for the VOC-only (AUC 0.97; MCR 4%), although internal validation indicated attenuation of performance (bootstrap-corrected AUC 0.64; LOOCV AUC 0.65). The combined clinical + VOC model remained comparably high (AUC 0.96; MCR 8%), outperforming the clinical-only benchmark (AUC 0.73; MCR 32%). These findings support complementary, noninvasive breath-based approaches for pulmonary nodule triage and warrant larger multicenter validation studies.
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.