SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Future Trends in Semiconducting Gas-Selective Sensing Probes for Skin Diagnostics.

Sensors (Basel) · 2021-11-13

DOI: 10.3390/s21227554PMID: 34833630

Open accessother; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

This paper presents sensor nanotechnologies that can be used for the skin-based gas "smelling" of disease. Skin testing may provide rapid and reliable results, using specific "fingerprints" or unique patterns for a variety of diseases and conditions. These can include metabolic diseases, such as diabetes and cholesterol-induced heart disease; neurological diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's; quality of life conditions, such as obesity and sleep apnea; pulmonary diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; gastrointestinal tract diseases, such as irritable bowel syndrome and colitis; cancers, such as breast, lung, pancreatic, and colon cancers; infectious diseases, such as the flu and COVID-19; as well as diseases commonly found in ICU patients, such as urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and infections of the blood stream. Focusing on the most common gaseous biomarkers in breath and skin, which is nitric oxide and carbon monoxide, and certain abundant volatile organic compounds (acetone, isoprene, ammonia, alcohols, sulfides), it is argued here that effective discrimination between the diseases mentioned above is possible, by capturing the relative sensor output signals from the detection of each of these biomarkers and identifying the distinct breath print for each disease.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.