Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prediction of lung cancer using volatile biomarkers in breath1

Phillips, Michael, Altorki, Nasser, Austin, John H.M., Cameron, Robert B., Cataneo, Renee N., Greenberg, Joel, Kloss, Robert, Maxfield, Roger A., Munawar, Muhammad I., Pass, Harvey I., Rashid, Asif, Rom, William N., Schmitt, Peter·2007·Cancer Biomarkers

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Normal metabolism generates several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are excreted in the breath (e.g. alkanes). In patients with lung cancer, induction of high-risk cytochrome p450 genotypes may accelerate catabolism of these VOCs, so that their altered abundance in breath may provide biomarkers of lung cancer. METHODS: VOCs in 1.0 L alveolar breath were analyzed in 193 subjects with primary lung cancer and 211 controls with a negative chest CT. Subjects were randomly assigned to a training set or to a prediction set in a 2:1 split. A fuzzy logic model of breath biomarkers of lung cancer was constructed in the training set and then tested in subjects in the prediction set by generating their typicality scores for lung cancer. RESULTS: Mean typicality scores employing a 16 VOC model were significantly higher in lung cancer patients than in the control group (p<0.0001 in all TNM stages). The model predicted primary lung cancer with 84.6% sensitivity, 80.0% specificity, and 0.88 area under curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Predictive accuracy was similar in TNM stages 1 through 4, and was not affected by current or former tobacco smoking. The predictive model achieved near-maximal performance with six breath VOCs, and was progressively degraded by random classifiers. Predictions with fuzzy logic were consistently superior to multilinear analysis. If applied to a population with 2% prevalence of lung cancer, a screening breath test would have a negative predictive value of 0.985 and a positive predictive value of 0.163 (true positive rate =0.277, false positive rate =0.029). CONCLUSIONS: A two-minute breath test predicted lung cancer with accuracy comparable to screening CT of chest. The accuracy of the test was not affected by TNM stage of disease or tobacco smoking. Alterations in breath VOCs in lung cancer were consistent with a non-linear pathophysiologic process, such as an off-on switch controlling high-risk cytochrome p450 activity. Further research is needed to determine if detection of lung cancer with this test will reduce mortality.

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 · 10.3233/cbm-2007-3204

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Phillips, M., Altorki, N., Austin, J. H. M., Cameron, R. B., Cataneo, R. N., Greenberg, J., Kloss, R., Maxfield, R. A., Munawar, M. I., Pass, H. I., Rashid, A., Rom, W. N., & Schmitt, P.
Venue
Cancer Biomarkers
Published
2007-04-25
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
95-109
ISSN
  • 1574-0153 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-8592
OpenAlex
W44319099
Cited by
323
References
1
FWCI
12.12
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: Prediction of lung cancer using volatile biomarkers in breath1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3233/cbm-2007-3204
The paper
Phillips, M., Altorki, N., Austin, J. H. M., Cameron, R. B., Cataneo, R. N., Greenberg, J., Kloss, R., Maxfield, R. A., Munawar, M. I., Pass, H. I., Rashid, A., Rom, W. N., & Schmitt, P. (2007). Prediction of lung cancer using volatile biomarkers in breath1. Cancer Biomarkers. https://doi.org/10.3233/cbm-2007-3204

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.