Cited by 88Advanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesOdor and Emission Control TechnologiesSpectroscopy and Laser Applications

The smell of lung disease: a review of the current status of electronic nose technology

Open access
van der Sar, I. G., Wijbenga, N., Nakshbandi, G., Aerts, J. G. J. V., Manintveld, O. C., Wijsenbeek, M. S., Hellemons, M. E., Moor, C. C.·2021·Respiratory Research

Abstract

There is a need for timely, accurate diagnosis, and personalised management in lung diseases. Exhaled breath reflects inflammatory and metabolic processes in the human body, especially in the lungs. The analysis of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has gained increasing attention in the past years. This technique has great potential to be used in clinical practice as a real-time non-invasive diagnostic tool, and for monitoring disease course and therapeutic effects. To date, multiple eNoses have been developed and evaluated in clinical studies across a wide spectrum of lung diseases, mainly for diagnostic purposes. Heterogeneity in study design, analysis techniques, and differences between eNose devices currently hamper generalization and comparison of study results. Moreover, many pilot studies have been performed, while validation and implementation studies are scarce. These studies are needed before implementation in clinical practice can be realised. This review summarises the technical aspects of available eNose devices and the available evidence for clinical application of eNose technology in different lung diseases. Furthermore, recommendations for future research to pave the way for clinical implementation of eNose technology are provided.

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 · 10.1186/s12931-021-01835-4

Cites

116 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Several cohort studies using different eNose devices have shown that breathprints differed significantly between patients with ILD and healthy controls (100% accuracy), IPF and healthy controls (98.5% accuracy) and IPF and non-IPF ILD (91% accuracy).

    “Several cohort studies using different eNose devices have shown that breathprints differed significantly between patients with ILD and healthy controls (100% accuracy), IPF and healthy controls (98.5% accuracy) and IPF and non-IPF ILD (91% accuracy) (Ibrahim et al., 2021; van der Sar et al., 2021).”

    From Pulmonary fibrosis: Emerging diagnostic and therapeutic strategies (2023) · cites this paper as van der Sar et al., 2021

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3]Potter P Hippocrates Vol VI. Diseases, internal affections 1988 Cambridge, MA/London Harvard University Press
  2. [13]Shobha G Rangaswamy S Gudivada VN Rao CR Chapter 8—Machine learning Handbook of statistics 2018 Elsevier Amsterdam 197 228
  3. [118]Abdel-Aziz M, Brinkman P, Vijverberg S, Neerincx A, Vries R, Dagelet Y, et al. eNose breathprints as a surrogate biomarker for classifying asthma patients by atopy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020. 32531371

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Sar, I. G., Wijbenga, N., Nakshbandi, G., Aerts, J. G. J. V., Manintveld, O. C., Wijsenbeek, M. S., Hellemons, M. E., & Moor, C. C.
Affiliations
Erasmus MC (NL)
Corresponding author
Moor, C. C.
Venue
Respiratory Research
Published
2021-09-17
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
246-246
ISSN
  • 1465-9921 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-993X
OpenAlex
W3201380385
Cited by
87
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Respiratory Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Process Chemistry and Technology › Odor and Emission Control Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Spectroscopy and Laser Applications
Keywords
electronic nose, breath analysis, lung disease, non-invasive diagnosis, breath biomarkers, clinical validation, disease surveillance, clinical implementation
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Lung Diseases, Smell, Exhalation, Precision Medicine, Electronic Nose

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