TY - JOUR
T1 - Examination of unique volatile organic compound signatures in nasopharyngeal test swab viral transport media using an electronic nose
AU - Swanson, Barbara
AU - Bishop-Royse, Jessica
AU - Keshavarzian, Ali
AU - Balk, Robert
AU - Bhushan, Abhinav
AU - Moy, James
AU - Landay, Alan
AU - Julion, Wrenetha
AU - Mehta, Jhalak
AU - Arrieta, Maryan
AU - Behun, Dylan
AU - Bowlen, Michael
AU - Kang, Minnie
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 Swanson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2025/9
Y1 - 2025/9
N2 - Rapid point of care tests for respiratory infections are associated with high rates of false negative results which can drive empiric, and potentially inappropriate, antibiotic use. Because infectious pathogens alter VOC composition, unique VOC signatures in biospecimens hold the potential to discriminate bacterial and viral infections from uninfected controls. One approach for rapid identification of respiratory pathogens is the electronic nose (e-nose), a sensor device that uses artificial intelligence to recognize disease-specific patterns in VOC profiles of gaseous mixtures. In this preclinical proof of concept study, we tested the validity of an e-nose to discriminate PCR-confirmed cases of infection with three viral pathogens (SARS-CoV-2, RSV, influenza A) from uninfected controls using nasopharyngeal test swab media. Using exploratory factor analysis, the e-nose discriminated both influenza A and SAR-CoV-2 from uninfected controls. To assess sensitivity and specificity, we applied factor analysis-based threshold values and obtained high levels of sensitivity (96.30%) and specificity (90.62%) for influenza A and more modest levels for SARS-CoV-2 (sensitivity=75%, specificity=68.57%). We did not apply threshold values to RSV samples because the e-nose sensors showed low discriminatory power for that pathogen. Our findings support proof of concept of the validity of the e-nose to discriminate common viral respiratory pathogens. Our use of binary thresholds for influenza A, which are easily adapted to point-of-care settings, yielded superior sensitivity results and comparable specificity results when compared to rapid tests. We recommend that future studies apply our analytic approach to samples of human breath to determine if these findings can be replicated or improved.
AB - Rapid point of care tests for respiratory infections are associated with high rates of false negative results which can drive empiric, and potentially inappropriate, antibiotic use. Because infectious pathogens alter VOC composition, unique VOC signatures in biospecimens hold the potential to discriminate bacterial and viral infections from uninfected controls. One approach for rapid identification of respiratory pathogens is the electronic nose (e-nose), a sensor device that uses artificial intelligence to recognize disease-specific patterns in VOC profiles of gaseous mixtures. In this preclinical proof of concept study, we tested the validity of an e-nose to discriminate PCR-confirmed cases of infection with three viral pathogens (SARS-CoV-2, RSV, influenza A) from uninfected controls using nasopharyngeal test swab media. Using exploratory factor analysis, the e-nose discriminated both influenza A and SAR-CoV-2 from uninfected controls. To assess sensitivity and specificity, we applied factor analysis-based threshold values and obtained high levels of sensitivity (96.30%) and specificity (90.62%) for influenza A and more modest levels for SARS-CoV-2 (sensitivity=75%, specificity=68.57%). We did not apply threshold values to RSV samples because the e-nose sensors showed low discriminatory power for that pathogen. Our findings support proof of concept of the validity of the e-nose to discriminate common viral respiratory pathogens. Our use of binary thresholds for influenza A, which are easily adapted to point-of-care settings, yielded superior sensitivity results and comparable specificity results when compared to rapid tests. We recommend that future studies apply our analytic approach to samples of human breath to determine if these findings can be replicated or improved.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105016482395
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105016482395#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0332399
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0332399
M3 - Article
C2 - 40971361
AN - SCOPUS:105016482395
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 20
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 9 November
M1 - e0332399
ER -