Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/ C4770726!4770726!26440312     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Oncotarget 2015 ; 6 (36): 38643-57 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26440312|t=2015. Detection of cancer through exhaled breath: a systematic review |pdf=|usr=}}{{26440312}} gab.com Text Detection of cancer through exhaled breath: a systematic review JO: Oncotarget http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26440312 #FOAvip Background: Timely diagnosis of cancer represents a challenging task; in particular, there is a need for reliable non-invasive screening tools that could achieve high levels of adherence at virtually no risk in population-based screening. In this review, we summarize the current evidence of exhaled breath analysis for cancer detection using standard analysis techniques and electronic nose. Methods: Relevant studies were identified searching Pubmed and Web of Science databases until April 30, 2015. Information on breath test performance, such as sensitivity and specificity, was extracted together with volatile compounds that were used to discriminate cancer patients from controls. Performance of different breath analysis techniques is provided for various cancers together with information on methodological issues, such as breath sampling protocol and validation of the results. Results: Overall, 73 studies were included, where two-thirds of the studies were conducted on lung cancer. Good discrimination usually required a combination of multiple biomarkers, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or accuracy reached levels of 0.9 or higher in multiple studies. In 25% of the reported studies, classification models were built and validated on the same datasets. Huge variability was seen in different aspects among the studies. Conclusions: Analyses of exhaled breath yielded promising results, although standardization of breath collection, sample storage and data handling remain critical issues. In order to foster breath analysis implementation into practice, larger studies should be implemented in true screening settings, paying particular attention to standardization in breath collection, consideration of covariates, and validation in independent population samples. Twit Text FOAVip Detection of cancer through exhaled breath: a systematic review ????Oncotarget http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26440312 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26440312 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26440312}}</ref> Detection of cancer through exhaled breath: a systematic review #MMPMID26440312 Krilaviciute A; Heiss JA; Leja M; Kupcinskas J; Haick H; Brenner H Oncotarget 2015[Nov]; 6 (36): 38643-57 PMID26440312show ga Background: Timely diagnosis of cancer represents a challenging task; in particular, there is a need for reliable non-invasive screening tools that could achieve high levels of adherence at virtually no risk in population-based screening. In this review, we summarize the current evidence of exhaled breath analysis for cancer detection using standard analysis techniques and electronic nose. Methods: Relevant studies were identified searching Pubmed and Web of Science databases until April 30, 2015. Information on breath test performance, such as sensitivity and specificity, was extracted together with volatile compounds that were used to discriminate cancer patients from controls. Performance of different breath analysis techniques is provided for various cancers together with information on methodological issues, such as breath sampling protocol and validation of the results. Results: Overall, 73 studies were included, where two-thirds of the studies were conducted on lung cancer. Good discrimination usually required a combination of multiple biomarkers, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or accuracy reached levels of 0.9 or higher in multiple studies. In 25% of the reported studies, classification models were built and validated on the same datasets. Huge variability was seen in different aspects among the studies. Conclusions: Analyses of exhaled breath yielded promising results, although standardization of breath collection, sample storage and data handling remain critical issues. In order to foster breath analysis implementation into practice, larger studies should be implemented in true screening settings, paying particular attention to standardization in breath collection, consideration of covariates, and validation in independent population samples. äDetection of cancer through exhaled breath: a systematic review (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing