4.5 Article

MOS Sensors Array for the Discrimination of Lung Cancer and At-Risk Subjects with Exhaled Breath Analysis

期刊

CHEMOSENSORS
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/chemosensors9080209

关键词

exhaled breath; MOS sensors; VOCs

资金

  1. European Institute of Oncology (Milan, Italy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Breath analysis can be used for early detection of lung cancer and improving survival rates. This study utilized an electronic nose for automatic exhaled breath analysis, achieving recall and precision rates of 78% to 80% through a classification model combining gas sensor features and clinical features.
Lung cancer is characterized by a tremendously high mortality rate and a low 5-year survival rate when diagnosed at a late stage. Early diagnosis of lung cancer drastically reduces its mortality rate and improves survival. Exhaled breath analysis could offer a tool to clinicians to improve the ability to detect lung cancer at an early stage, thus leading to a reduction in the associated survival rate. In this paper, we present an electronic nose for the automatic analysis of exhaled breath. A total of five a-specific gas sensors were embedded in the electronic nose, making it sensitive to different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contained in exhaled breath. Nine features were extracted from each gas sensor response to exhaled breath, identifying the subject breathprint. We tested the electronic nose on a cohort of 80 subjects, equally split between lung cancer and at-risk control subjects. Including gas sensor features and clinical features in a classification model, recall, precision, and accuracy of 78%, 80%, and 77% were reached using a fourfold cross-validation approach. The addition of other a-specific gas sensors, or of sensors specific to certain compounds, could improve the classification accuracy, therefore allowing for the development of a clinical tool to be integrated in the clinical pipeline for exhaled breath analysis and lung cancer early diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据