2016
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-016-1457-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The use of the PEN3 e-nose in the screening of colorectal cancer and polyps

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
42
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This makes for poor reliability despite some interesting results obtained with dedicated purpose-designed e-noses [9]. In our hands, a commercial e-nose was unable to discriminate patients with CRC or polyps from healthy volunteers [13].…”
mentioning
confidence: 63%
“…This makes for poor reliability despite some interesting results obtained with dedicated purpose-designed e-noses [9]. In our hands, a commercial e-nose was unable to discriminate patients with CRC or polyps from healthy volunteers [13].…”
mentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Conversely, an Italian study using a commercial e-nose (PEN3™ eNose—Airsense Analytics GmbH, Schwerin, Germany), was unable to discriminate between CRC patients and healthy controls despite the higher detection of methane, methane derivatives, organic and aromatic compounds, in CRC patients [ 29 ]. More recently, however, good accuracy was reported using a different eNose (Aeonose™—The eNose Company, Zutphen, the Netherlands) [ 23 ], which showed an AUC of 0.84, with a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 64%, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time, a reliability assay of commercial electronic nose (PEN3 e-nose) as a screening tool for CRC and polyp patients found that it was impossible to discriminate the tested groups by using supervised or unsupervised statistical methods ( 32 ). They analyzed that the sensor’s unspecific response to the presence of defined exhaled VOC may be the reason for random classification of subjects to each group.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%