Potential urinary volatile organic compounds as screening markers in cancer – a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early detection of cancer typically facilitates improved patient outcomes; however, many cancers are not easily diagnosed at an early stage. One potential route for developing new, non-invasive methods of cancer detection is by testing for cancer-related volatile organic compounds (VOCs) biomarkers in patients' urine. In this review, 44 studies covering the use and/or identification of cancer-related VOCs were examined, including studies which examined multiple types of cancer simultaneously, as well as diverse study designs. Among these studies the most studied cancers included prostate cancer (29% of papers), lung cancer (22%), breast cancer (20%), and bladder cancer (18%), with a smaller number of studies focused on colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, skin, liver cancer and others. Importantly, most studies which produced a VOC-based model of cancer detection observed a combined sensitivity and specificity above 150%, indicating that urine-based methods of cancer detection show considerable promise as a diagnostic tool. Mass spectrometry (MS) and electronic noses (eNose) were the most employed tools used in the detection of VOCs, while animal-based models were less common. In terms of VOCs of interest, 47 chemical species identified as correlated with various types of cancer in at least two unrelated papers, some of which were consistently up- or down-regulated in cancer patients, and which may represent useful targets for future studies investing urinary VOC biomarkers of cancer. Overall, it was concluded that research in this field has shown promising results, but more work may be needed before the widespread adoption of these techniques takes place.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".