| Title |
Breath volatolomics for diagnosing chronic rhinosinusitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s171488 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yoav Y Broza, Itzhak Braverman, Hossam Haick |
| Abstract |
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is one of the most common chronic diseases treated by primary care physicians. It is increasingly recognized that CRS and nasal polyposis (NP) comprise several disease processes with diverse causes. Hence, subgroups of sinusitis need to be differentiated so that patients can be screened appropriately and personalized medical treatment provided. To address this need, we use a cross-reactive nanoarray based on either molecularly modified gold nanoparticles or molecularly modified single-walled carbon nanotubes, combined with pattern recognition for analyzing breath samples. Breath samples were collected from three groups of volunteers (total 71) at the Hillel Yaffe Medical Center: CRS, NP, and control. Nanoarray results discriminated between patients with sinusitis and the control group with 87% sensitivity, 83% specificity, and 85% accuracy. The system also discriminated well between the subpopulations: 1) CRS vs control (76% sensitivity, 90% specificity); 2) CRS vs NP (82% sensitivity, 71% specificity); and 3) NP vs control (71% sensitivity, 90% specificity). This preliminary study shows that a nanoarray-based breath test for screening population for sinusitis-related conditions is feasible. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 5 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 14% |
| Chemical Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#16,053,755
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,886
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,886
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#29
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.