They have numbers in the paper[0] linked in TFA. They trained on 29 samples and tested on 12 samples. On those samples, all techniques (NN, SVM, CNN) all had 100% true positive rates. The CNNs did best on false positives, giving on average 2-3 per sample.

Also, it is very important to note: they are comparing a CNN analysing a GC-MS[1] sample to a human expert analysing a GC-MS sample, which is basically a 1D plot of intensities of chemicals. This is not a comparison to a human smelling someone's breath.

Also, as far as I can see, they never compare to a GC-MS run with selective ion monitoring (SIM), which would be a lot faster for the human to analyse.

[0] (ResearchGate link, sorry): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324921031_Convoluti...

[1] A gas-chromatograph mass spectrometer is a device which samples a gas and detects what chemical species are present. It's what they do at airports when they swipe that piece of fabric on your luggage and put it in a machine (GC-MS) to look for explosives. It's a nice tool, used extensively in labs worldwide, but expensive (usually a couple hundred thousand USD, depending on specifications).