Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Volatile Organic Compounds in Exhaled Breath as Fingerprints of Lung Cancer, Asthma and COPD

Open access
Ratiu, Ileana Andreea, Ligor, Tomasz, Bocos-Bintintan, Victor, Mayhew, Chris A, Buszewski, Bogusław·2020·Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are inflammatory diseases that have risen worldwide, posing a major public health issue, encompassing not only physical and psychological morbidity and mortality, but also incurring significant societal costs. The leading cause of death worldwide by cancer is that of the lung, which, in large part, is a result of the disease often not being detected until a late stage. Although COPD and asthma are conditions with considerably lower mortality, they are extremely distressful to people and involve high healthcare overheads. Moreover, for these diseases, diagnostic methods are not only costly but are also invasive, thereby adding to people’s stress. It has been appreciated for many decades that the analysis of trace volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath could potentially provide cheaper, rapid, and non-invasive screening procedures to diagnose and monitor the above diseases of the lung. However, after decades of research associated with breath biomarker discovery, no breath VOC tests are clinically available. Reasons for this include the little consensus as to which breath volatiles (or pattern of volatiles) can be used to discriminate people with lung diseases, and our limited understanding of the biological origin of the identified VOCs. Lung disease diagnosis using breath VOCs is challenging. Nevertheless, the numerous studies of breath volatiles and lung disease provide guidance as to what volatiles need further investigation for use in differential diagnosis, highlight the urgent need for non-invasive clinical breath tests, illustrate the way forward for future studies, and provide significant guidance to achieve the goal of developing non-invasive diagnostic tests for lung disease. This review provides an overview of these issues from evaluating key studies that have been undertaken in the years 2010–2019, in order to present objective and comprehensive updated information that presents the progress that has been made in this field. The potential of this approach is highlighted, while strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are discussed. This review will be of interest to chemists, biologists, medical doctors and researchers involved in the development of analytical instruments for breath diagnosis.

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 · 10.3390/jcm10010032

Cites

112 of 112 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 112 references

Metadata

Authors
Ratiu, I. A., Ligor, T., Bocos-Bintintan, V., Mayhew, C. A., & Buszewski, B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-12-24
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
32
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3115801176
Cited by
320
References
112
FWCI
15.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Volatile Organic Compounds in Exhaled Breath as Fingerprints of Lung Cancer, Asthma and COPD. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/jcm10010032
The paper
Ratiu, I. A., Ligor, T., Bocos-Bintintan, V., Mayhew, C. A., & Buszewski, B. (2020). Volatile Organic Compounds in Exhaled Breath as Fingerprints of Lung Cancer, Asthma and COPD. Journal of Clinical Medicine. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010032

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.