Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 451

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An electronic nose in the discrimination of patients with asthma and controls

Dragonieri, Silvano, Schot, Robert, Mertens, Bart J.A., Le Cessie, Saskia, Gauw, Stefanie A., Spanevello, Antonio, Resta, Onofrio, Willard, Nico P., Vink, Teunis J., Rabe, Klaus F., Bel, Elisabeth H., Sterk, Peter J.·2007·Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract

BACKGROUND Exhaled breath contains thousands of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that could serve as biomarkers of lung disease. Electronic noses can distinguish VOC mixtures by pattern recognition. OBJECTIVE We hypothesized that an electronic nose can discriminate exhaled air of patients with asthma from healthy controls, and between patients with different disease severities. METHODS Ten young patients with mild asthma (25.1 +/- 5.9 years; FEV(1), 99.9 +/- 7.7% predicted), 10 young controls (26.8 +/- 6.4 years; FEV(1), 101.9 +/- 10.3), 10 older patients with severe asthma (49.5 +/- 12.0 years; FEV(1), 62.3 +/- 23.6), and 10 older controls (57.3 +/- 7.1 years; FEV(1), 108.3 +/- 14.7) joined a cross-sectional study with duplicate sampling of exhaled breath with an interval of 2 to 5 minutes. Subjects inspired VOC-filtered air by tidal breathing for 5 minutes, and a single expiratory vital capacity was collected into a Tedlar bag that was sampled by electronic nose (Cyranose 320) within 10 minutes. Smellprints were analyzed by linear discriminant analysis on principal component reduction. Cross-validation values (CVVs) were calculated. RESULTS Smellprints of patients with mild asthma were fully separated from young controls (CVV, 100%; Mahalanobis distance [M-distance], 5.32), and patients with severe asthma could be distinguished from old controls (CVV, 90%; M-distance, 2.77). Patients with mild and severe asthma could be less well discriminated (CVV, 65%; M-distance, 1.23), whereas the 2 control groups were indistinguishable (CVV, 50%; M-distance, 1.56). The duplicate samples replicated these results. CONCLUSION An electronic nose can discriminate exhaled breath of patients with asthma from controls but is less accurate in distinguishing asthma severities. CLINICAL IMPLICATION These findings warrant validation of electronic noses in diagnosing newly presented patients with asthma.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.05.043

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 451

Metadata

Authors
Dragonieri, S., Schot, R., Mertens, B. J. A., Le Cessie, S., Gauw, S. A., Spanevello, A., Resta, O., Willard, N. P., Vink, T. J., Rabe, K. F., Bel, E. H., & Sterk, P. J.
Venue
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-10
Volume
120
Issue
4
Pages
856-862
ISSN
0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074325744
Cited by
451
References
30
FWCI
10.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An electronic nose in the discrimination of patients with asthma and controls. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jaci.2007.05.043
The paper
Dragonieri, S., Schot, R., Mertens, B. J. A., Le Cessie, S., Gauw, S. A., Spanevello, A., Resta, O., Willard, N. P., Vink, T. J., Rabe, K. F., Bel, E. H., & Sterk, P. J. (2007). An electronic nose in the discrimination of patients with asthma and controls. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2007.05.043

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.