Back

Validation of an electronic-nose sensor array in detecting C. difficile and differentiating toxin-positive from toxin-negative stool samples

Balius, P. N.; Campbell, C.; Ikrma, M.; Nguyen, H. H.

2026-10-08 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.10.06.26364614 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: To evaluate the specimen-level performance of a multichannel electronic nose (e-nose) sensor array in classifying stool specimens into relevant Clostridioides difficile categories. Design: Retrospective single-center validation study with reference to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and C. difficile toxin testing. Participants: A convenience sample of 31 discarded stool specimens with PCR and confirmatory toxin testing. Categorized into PCR-positive (+)/toxin+, PCR+/toxin-negative (-), and PCR-. Methods: Specimens were sampled in controlled headspace by two e-nose sensor arrays in 10-minute sessions with 5-second sampling intervals. The primary endpoint was one-versus rest classification performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy) into three classes: PCR+/toxin+, PCR+/toxin-, and PCR-. Data were normalized and the region of interest was extracted for training and testing. Random forests were utilized for classification of normalized data with a test-train split at the specimen-level. Results: There were 457 unique 10-minute sampling events (147 PCR+/toxin+, 183 PCR+/toxin-, 127 PCR-). Sensors 1 and 2 captured 20,331 and 23,538 unique 5-second exposures within the region of interest, respectively. Testing data classification accuracy was 0.79 [0.78, 0.81] and 0.84 [0.83, 0.85] for Sensors 1 and 2. Sensitivity for PCR+/toxin+ exposures was 0.82 [0.79, 0.84] and 0.94 [0.92, 0.95], and specificity was 0.91[0.90, 0.93] and 0.93 [0.92, 0.94] for Sensors 1 and 2. Conclusion: An e-nose sensor array partially differentiated PCR-classified C. difficile specimen classes at the exposure level under headspace-controlled conditions. Performance was strongest for PCR+/toxin+ exposures. Findings support further prospective validation in the hospital room setting.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.