Exhaled volatile organic compounds associated with risk factors for obstructive pulmonary diseases: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Asthma and COPD are among the most common respiratory diseases. To improve the early detection of exacerbations and the clinical course of asthma and COPD new biomarkers are needed. The development of noninvasive metabolomics of exhaled air into a point-of-care tool is an appealing option. However, risk factors for obstructive pulmonary diseases can potentially introduce confounding markers due to altered volatile organic compound (VOC) patterns being linked to these risk factors instead of the disease. We conducted a systematic review and presented a comprehensive list of VOCs associated with these risk factors. Methods: A PRISMA-oriented systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Libraries between 2000 and 2022. Full-length studies evaluating VOCs in exhaled breath were included. A narrative synthesis of the data was conducted, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Results: The search yielded 2209 records and, based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 24 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. In total, 232 individual VOCs associated with risk factors for obstructive pulmonary diseases were found; 58 compounds were reported more than once and 12 were reported as potential markers of asthma and/or COPD in other studies. Critical appraisal found that the identified studies were methodologically heterogeneous and had a variable risk of bias. Conclusion: We identified a series of exhaled VOCs associated with risk factors for asthma and/or COPD. Identification of these VOCs is necessary for the further development of exhaled metabolites-based point-of-care tests in these obstructive pulmonary diseases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".