{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028624192059095107, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00554016620498615, 'mean_word_length': 5.609756097560975, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Breath biomarkers in asthma: we're getting answers, but what are the important questions?

Over recent years, the field of breathomics has matured such that systematic reviews are not only viable, but considered important enough for dissemination via high impact clinical research journals such as the European Respiratory Journal. Recently, we have seen accelerating interest in this exciting biomarker discovery platform with reviews covering topics such as paediatric asthma [1], lung infection [2, 3] and fibrotic lung diseases [4, 5]. For rapidly developing fields such as this, synoptic work provides important functions both for newcomers, by introducing and stimulating interest, but equally for established researcher teams, by highlighting both consistency and variability in findings across studies. Reports of potential biomarkers in breath are rapidly accumulating, such that systematic reviews are now feasible. We should now take stock and ensure every future study design is able to contribute a step forward towards future clinical application. http://bit.ly/2khqrWi