4.6 Article

Analysis of Exhaled Breath Volatile Organic Compounds in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Pilot Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 731-737

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv102

关键词

Volatile organic compounds; breath; inflammatory bowel disease; metabonomics

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2014-21-002] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Distinguishing between the inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD], Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC], is important for determining management and prognosis. Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry [SIFT-MS] may be used to analyse volatile organic compounds [VOCs] in exhaled breath: these may be altered in disease states, and distinguishing breath VOC profiles can be identified. The aim of this pilot study was to identify, quantify, and analyse VOCs present in the breath of IBD patients and controls, potentially providing insights into disease pathogenesis and complementing current diagnostic algorithms. SIFT-MS breath profiling of 56 individuals [20 UC, 18 CD, and 18 healthy controls] was undertaken. Multivariate analysis included principal components analysis and partial least squares discriminant analysis with orthogonal signal correction [OSC-PLS-DA]. Receiver operating characteristic [ROC] analysis was performed for each comparative analysis using statistically significant VOCs. OSC-PLS-DA modelling was able to distinguish both CD and UC from healthy controls and from one other with good sensitivity and specificity. ROC analysis using combinations of statistically significant VOCs [dimethyl sulphide, hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, butanal, and nonanal] gave integrated areas under the curve of 0.86 [CD vs healthy controls], 0.74 [UC vs healthy controls], and 0.83 [CD vs UC]. Exhaled breath VOC profiling was able to distinguish IBD patients from controls, as well as to separate UC from CD, using both multivariate and univariate statistical techniques.

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

4.6
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