Maryan Arrieta, Barbara Swanson, Louis Fogg, Abhinav Bhushan
{"title":"Cyranose 320呼吸分析中的线性和非线性模型综述。","authors":"Maryan Arrieta, Barbara Swanson, Louis Fogg, Abhinav Bhushan","doi":"10.1088/1752-7163/accf31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath specimens has potential for point of care (POC) screening due to ease of sample collection. While the electronic nose (e-nose) is a standard VOC measure across a wide range of industries, it has not been adopted for POC screening in healthcare. One limitation of the e-nose is the absence of mathematical models of data analysis that yield easily interpreted findings at POC. The purposes of this review were to (1) examine the sensitivity/specificity results from studies that analyzed breath smellprints using the Cyranose 320, a widely used commercial e-nose, and (2) determine whether linear or nonlinear mathematical models are superior for analyzing Cyranose 320 breath smellprints. This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses using keywords related to e-nose and breath. Twenty-two articles met the eligibility criteria. Two studies used a linear model while the rest used nonlinear models. The two studies that used a linear model had a smaller range for mean of sensitivity and higher mean (71.0%-96.0%;<i>M</i>= 83.5%) compared to the studies that used nonlinear models (46.9%-100%;<i>M</i>= 77.0%). Additionally, studies that used linear models had a smaller range for mean of specificity and higher mean (83.0%-91.5%;<i>M</i>= 87.2%) compared to studies that used nonlinear models (56.9%-94.0%;<i>M</i>= 76.9%). Linear models achieved smaller ranges for means of sensitivity and specificity compared to nonlinear models supporting additional investigations of their use for POC testing. Because our findings were derived from studies of heterogenous medical conditions, it is not known if they generalize to specific diagnoses.</p>","PeriodicalId":15306,"journal":{"name":"Journal of breath research","volume":"17 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review of linear and nonlinear models in breath analysis by Cyranose 320.\",\"authors\":\"Maryan Arrieta, Barbara Swanson, Louis Fogg, Abhinav Bhushan\",\"doi\":\"10.1088/1752-7163/accf31\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath specimens has potential for point of care (POC) screening due to ease of sample collection. While the electronic nose (e-nose) is a standard VOC measure across a wide range of industries, it has not been adopted for POC screening in healthcare. One limitation of the e-nose is the absence of mathematical models of data analysis that yield easily interpreted findings at POC. The purposes of this review were to (1) examine the sensitivity/specificity results from studies that analyzed breath smellprints using the Cyranose 320, a widely used commercial e-nose, and (2) determine whether linear or nonlinear mathematical models are superior for analyzing Cyranose 320 breath smellprints. This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses using keywords related to e-nose and breath. Twenty-two articles met the eligibility criteria. Two studies used a linear model while the rest used nonlinear models. The two studies that used a linear model had a smaller range for mean of sensitivity and higher mean (71.0%-96.0%;<i>M</i>= 83.5%) compared to the studies that used nonlinear models (46.9%-100%;<i>M</i>= 77.0%). Additionally, studies that used linear models had a smaller range for mean of specificity and higher mean (83.0%-91.5%;<i>M</i>= 87.2%) compared to studies that used nonlinear models (56.9%-94.0%;<i>M</i>= 76.9%). Linear models achieved smaller ranges for means of sensitivity and specificity compared to nonlinear models supporting additional investigations of their use for POC testing. Because our findings were derived from studies of heterogenous medical conditions, it is not known if they generalize to specific diagnoses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of breath research\",\"volume\":\"17 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of breath research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/accf31\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of breath research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/accf31","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Review of linear and nonlinear models in breath analysis by Cyranose 320.
Analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath specimens has potential for point of care (POC) screening due to ease of sample collection. While the electronic nose (e-nose) is a standard VOC measure across a wide range of industries, it has not been adopted for POC screening in healthcare. One limitation of the e-nose is the absence of mathematical models of data analysis that yield easily interpreted findings at POC. The purposes of this review were to (1) examine the sensitivity/specificity results from studies that analyzed breath smellprints using the Cyranose 320, a widely used commercial e-nose, and (2) determine whether linear or nonlinear mathematical models are superior for analyzing Cyranose 320 breath smellprints. This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses using keywords related to e-nose and breath. Twenty-two articles met the eligibility criteria. Two studies used a linear model while the rest used nonlinear models. The two studies that used a linear model had a smaller range for mean of sensitivity and higher mean (71.0%-96.0%;M= 83.5%) compared to the studies that used nonlinear models (46.9%-100%;M= 77.0%). Additionally, studies that used linear models had a smaller range for mean of specificity and higher mean (83.0%-91.5%;M= 87.2%) compared to studies that used nonlinear models (56.9%-94.0%;M= 76.9%). Linear models achieved smaller ranges for means of sensitivity and specificity compared to nonlinear models supporting additional investigations of their use for POC testing. Because our findings were derived from studies of heterogenous medical conditions, it is not known if they generalize to specific diagnoses.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Breath Research is dedicated to all aspects of scientific breath research. The traditional focus is on analysis of volatile compounds and aerosols in exhaled breath for the investigation of exogenous exposures, metabolism, toxicology, health status and the diagnosis of disease and breath odours. The journal also welcomes other breath-related topics.
Typical areas of interest include:
Big laboratory instrumentation: describing new state-of-the-art analytical instrumentation capable of performing high-resolution discovery and targeted breath research; exploiting complex technologies drawn from other areas of biochemistry and genetics for breath research.
Engineering solutions: developing new breath sampling technologies for condensate and aerosols, for chemical and optical sensors, for extraction and sample preparation methods, for automation and standardization, and for multiplex analyses to preserve the breath matrix and facilitating analytical throughput. Measure exhaled constituents (e.g. CO2, acetone, isoprene) as markers of human presence or mitigate such contaminants in enclosed environments.
Human and animal in vivo studies: decoding the ''breath exposome'', implementing exposure and intervention studies, performing cross-sectional and case-control research, assaying immune and inflammatory response, and testing mammalian host response to infections and exogenous exposures to develop information directly applicable to systems biology. Studying inhalation toxicology; inhaled breath as a source of internal dose; resultant blood, breath and urinary biomarkers linked to inhalation pathway.
Cellular and molecular level in vitro studies.
Clinical, pharmacological and forensic applications.
Mathematical, statistical and graphical data interpretation.