Breathomics: A Non-Invasive Approach for the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide, underscoring the critical need for effective early detection methods to reduce mortality. Traditional detection techniques, such as mammography, present significant limitations, particularly in women with dense breast tissue, highlighting the need for alternative screening approaches. Breathomics, based on the analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) present in exhaled breath, offers a non-invasive, potentially transformative diagnostic tool. These VOCs are metabolic byproducts from various organs of the human body whose presence and varying concentrations in breath are reflective of different health conditions. This review explores the potential of breathomics, highlighting its promise as a rapid, cost-effective screening approach for breast cancer, facilitated through the integration of portable solutions like electronic noses (e-noses). Key considerations for clinical translation-including patient selection, environmental confounders, and different breath collection methods-will be examined in terms of how each of them affects the breath profile. However, there are also challenges such as patient variability in VOC signatures, and the need for standardization in breath sampling protocols. Future research should prioritize standardizing sampling and analytical procedures and validating their clinical utility through large-scale clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".