The potential of volatile organic compound analysis for pathogen detection and disease monitoring in patients with cystic fibrosis
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Airway infection with pathogens and its associated pulmonary exacerbations (PEX) are the major causes of morbidity and premature death in cystic fibrosis (CF). Preventing or postponing chronic infections requires early diagnosis. However, limitations of conventional microbiology-based methods can hamper identification of exacerbations and specific pathogen detection. Analyzing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath samples may be an interesting tool in this regard, as VOC-biomarkers can characterize specific airway infections in CF. AREAS COVERED: We address the current achievements in VOC-analysis and discuss studies assessing VOC-biomarkers and fingerprints, i.e. a combination of multiple VOCs, in breath samples aiming at pathogen and PEX detection in people with CF (pwCF). We aim to provide bases for further research in this interesting field. EXPERT OPINION: Overall, VOC-based analysis is a promising tool for diagnosis of infection and inflammation with potential to monitor disease progression in pwCF. Advantages over conventional diagnostic methods, including easy and non-invasive sampling procedures, may help to drive prompt, suitable therapeutic approaches in the future. Our review shall encourage further research, including validation of VOC-based methods. Specifically, longitudinal validation under standardized conditions is of interest in order to ensure repeatability and enable inclusion in CF diagnostic routine.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The combination of diverse gas-sensing films and an array design assisted by artificial intelligence algorithms shows great potential to enable accurate measurement of multiple gases.
“To enable accurate measurement of multiple gases, the combination of diverse gas-sensing films and an array design assisted by artificial intelligence algorithms shows great potential (Barucha et al. 2022; Yang et al. 2018).”
From Artificial intelligence enhanced sensors - enabling technologies to next-generation healthcare and biomedical platform (2023) · cites this paper as Barucha et al. 2022
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 6
- Authors
- Barucha, A., Mauch, R. M., Duckstein, F., Zagoya, C., & Mainz, J. G.
- Affiliations
- Universitätsklinikum Brandenburg an der Havel (DE)
- Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
- University of Potsdam (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Mainz, Jochen G.
- Venue
- Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-07-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 723-735
- ISSN
- 1747-6348 (ISSN-L)
- 1747-6356
- OpenAlex
- W4286212524
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 0.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cystic Fibrosis Research Advances
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
- Keywords
- cystic fibrosis, volatile organic compounds, breath analysis, VOC biomarkers, pulmonary exacerbations, airway infection, pathogen detection, disease surveillance, non-invasive diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Breath Tests, Cystic Fibrosis, Humans, Biomarkers, Volatile Organic Compounds
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