Detection of Bacteriuria by Canine Olfaction

Recapitulating COVID-19 detection methods: RT-PCR, sniffer dogs and electronic nose

In December 2019, a number of subjects presenting with an unexplained pneumonia-like illness were suspected to have a link to a seafood market in Wuhan, China. Subsequently, this illness was identified as the 2019-novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by the World Committee on Virus Classification. Since its initial identification, the virus has rapidly sperad across the globe, posing an extraordinary challenge for the medical community. Currently, the Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is considered the most reliable method for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2. This procedure involves collecting oro-pharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs from individuals. Nevertheless, for the early detection of low viral loads, a more sensitive technique, such as droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), has been suggested. Despite the high effectiveness of RT-PCR, there is increasing interest in utilizing highly trained dogs and electronic noses (eNoses) as alternative methods for screening asymptomatic individuals for SARS-CoV-2. These dogs and eNoses have demonstrated high sensitivity and can detect volatile organic compounds (VOCs), enabling them to distinguish between COVID-19 positive and negative individuals. This manuscript recapitulates the potential, advantages, and limitations of employing trained dogs and eNoses for the screening and control of SARS-CoV-2.

Scent Detection Threshold of Trained Dogs to Eucalyptus Hydrolat

Dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) sense of smell is based on a unique anatomy and physiology that enables them to find and differentiate low concentrations of odor molecules. This ability is exploited when dogs are trained as search, rescue, or medical detection dogs. We performed a three-part study to explore the scent detection threshold of 15 dogs to an in-house-made Eucalyptus hydrolat. Here, decreasing concentrations of the hydrolat were tested using a three-alternative forced-choice method until the first incorrect response, which defined the limit of scent detection for each tested dog. Quantitative proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy was used to identify and measure the contents of ten commercial Eucalyptus hydrolats, which are used in a dog scent training sport called "nose work". In this study, the dogs' limit of detection initially ranged from 1:104 to 1:1023 but narrowed down to 1:1017-1:1021 after a training period. The results show that, with training, dogs learn to discriminate decreasing concentrations of a target scent, and that dogs can discriminate Eucalyptus hydrolat at very low concentrations. We also detected different concentrations of eucalyptol and lower alcohols in the hydrolat products and highlight the importance of using an identical source of a scent in training a dog for participation in canine scent sport competitions and in olfactory research.

Can scent-detection dogs detect the stress associated with trauma cue exposure in people with trauma histories? A proof-of-concept study

Introduction

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an impairing mental health condition with high prevalence among military and general populations alike. PTSD service dogs are a complementary and alternative intervention needing scientific validation. We investigated whether dogs can detect putative stress-related volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the breath of people with trauma histories (54% with PTSD) exposed to personalized trauma cues.

Methods

Breath samples were collected from 26 humans over 40 experimental sessions during a calm (control breath sample) and stressed state induced by trauma cue exposure (target breath sample). Two scent detection canines were presented with the samples in a two alternative forced choice (2AFC) discrimination and yes/no detection task. The 2AFC task assessed the dogs' ability to discriminate between the two states within the breath samples of one individual. The detection task determined their ability to generalize the target odour across different individuals and different stressful events of one individual. Signal Detection Theory was applied to assess dogs' sensitivity, specificity, precision, and response bias.

Results

The dogs performed at ∼90% accuracy across all sample sets in the discrimination experiment, and at 74% and 81% accuracy, respectively, in the detection experiment. Further analysis of dog olfactory performance in relation to human donor self-reported emotional responses to trauma cue exposure suggested the dogs may have been detecting distinct endocrine stress markers. One dog's performance correlated with the human donors' self-reported fear responses and the other dog's performance correlated with the human donors' self-reported shame responses. Based on these correlations between dog performance and donor self-report measures, we speculate that the VOCs each dog was detecting likely originated from the sympathetico-adreno-medullary axis (SAM; adrenaline, noradrenaline) in the case of the first dog and the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA; glucocorticoids) in the case of the second dog.

Conclusion

Our proof-of-concept study is the first to demonstrate that some dogs can detect putative VOCs emitted by people with trauma histories when experiencing distress theoretically associated with the intrusion and arousal/reactivity symptoms of PTSD. Results have potential to improve the effectiveness and training protocol of PTSD service dogs with a focus on enhancing their alert function.

Olfaction in the canine cognitive and emotional processes: From behavioral and neural viewpoints to measurement possibilities

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) have excellent olfactory processing capabilities that are utilized widely in human society e.g., working with customs, police, and army; their scent detection is also used in guarding, hunting, mold-sniffing, searching for missing people or animals, and facilitating the life of the disabled. Sniffing and searching for odors is a natural, species-typical behavior and essential for the dog's welfare. While taking advantage of this canine ability widely, we understand its foundations and implications quite poorly. We can improve animal welfare by better understanding their olfactory world. In this review, we outline the olfactory processing of dogs in the nervous system, summarize the current knowledge of scent detection and differentiation; the effect of odors on the dogs' cognitive and emotional processes and the dog-human bond; and consider the methodological advancements that could be developed further to aid in our understanding of the canine world of odors.

Animal use in detection of disease within pediatric populations

There is a need for novel techniques for disease detection in humans. Research has shown that using animals for detection of disease is a promising area of study. A literature review was conducted using the terms animals, disease detection, seizures, epilepsy, infectious disease, cancer, and pediatrics to determine the published literature to date of the use of animals in detection of disease. Research studies between 1999-2022 were included in this article. The published studies demonstrate that animals have been used for disease detection in seizures, infectious diseases, Type I diabetes mellitus, and cancer. However, these studies have predominantly focused on the adult patient population. There is limited data available regarding the use of animals in disease detection within pediatrics, which warrants further research into this topic.

Canine olfactory detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected humans-a systematic review

PURPOSE

To complement conventional testing methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infections, dogs' olfactory capability for true real-time detection has been investigated worldwide. Diseases produce specific scents in affected individuals via volatile organic compounds. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence for canine olfaction as a reliable coronavirus disease 2019 screening tool.

METHODS

Two independent study quality assessment tools were used: the QUADAS-2 tool for the evaluation of laboratory tests' diagnostic accuracy, designed for systematic reviews, and a general evaluation tool for canine detection studies, adapted to medical detection. Various study design, sample, dog, and olfactory training features were considered as potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies from 15 countries were evaluated. Respectively, four and six studies had a low risk of bias and high quality: the four QUADAS-2 nonbiased studies resulted in ranges of 81%-97% sensitivity and 91%-100% specificity. The six high-quality studies, according to the general evaluation system, revealed ranges of 82%-97% sensitivity and 83%-100% specificity. The other studies contained high bias risks and applicability and/or quality concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardization and certification procedures as used for canine explosives detection are needed for medical detection dogs for the optimal and structured usage of their undoubtful potential.

Recognition of an Odour Pattern from Paenibacillus larvae Spore Samples by Trained Detection Dogs

Spores of the bacteria Paenibacillus larvae play a central role in the transmission of American Foulbrood (AFB), a major disease of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. This study investigated whether trained detection dogs could recognise an odour pattern from P. larvae spore samples. Although dogs have previously been used to detect diseased larvae in colonies with AFB, this is the first time they have been investigated for detecting P. larvae spore samples. Given that spores are metabolically inactive, it was unknown whether the spore samples would produce enough volatile organic compounds to form an odour pattern that could be detected by dogs. Three dogs were trained to identify laboratory-produced P. larvae spore samples and were systematically desensitized to non-target odours with a series of control samples. Two of the dogs successfully completed training and were then tested by having each dog perform six searches in an odour-detection carousel with the trainer blinded to the location of the spore samples. In this high-stakes forced-choice test, each dog was asked to identify one new spore sample, containing approximately 93-265 million P. larvae spores, from seven control samples. Both dogs correctly identified the spore sample every time (100% success rate); the probability of this result occurring by chance was p = 0.0000038. Therefore, this study demonstrates that dogs can recognise an odour pattern from bacterial spore samples, in this case, P. larvae, and provides proof of concept for further investigation into the use of detection dogs to reduce the spread of AFB in beekeeping businesses.

Remote Medical Scent Detection of Cancer and Infectious Diseases With Dogs and Rats: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Remote medical scent detection of cancer and infectious diseases with dogs and rats has been an increasing field of research these last 20 years. If validated, the possibility of implementing such a technique in the clinic raises many hopes. This systematic review was performed to determine the evidence and performance of such methods and assess their potential relevance in the clinic.

METHODS

Pubmed and Web of Science databases were independently searched based on PRISMA standards between 01/01/2000 and 01/05/2021. We included studies aiming at detecting cancers and infectious diseases affecting humans with dogs or rats. We excluded studies using other animals, studies aiming to detect agricultural diseases, diseases affecting animals, and others such as diabetes and neurodegenerative diseases. Only original articles were included. Data about patients' selection, samples, animal characteristics, animal training, testing configurations, and performances were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 62 studies were included. Sensitivity and specificity varied a lot among studies: While some publications report low sensitivities of 0.17 and specificities around 0.29, others achieve rates of 1 sensitivity and specificity. Only 6 studies were evaluated in a double-blind screening-like situation. In general, the risk of performance bias was high in most evaluated studies, and the quality of the evidence found was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical detection using animals' sense of smell lacks evidence and performances so far to be applied in the clinic. What odors the animals detect is not well understood. Further research should be conducted, focusing on patient selection, samples (choice of materials, standardization), and testing conditions. Interpolations of such results to free running detection (direct contact with humans) should be taken with extreme caution. Considering this synthesis, we discuss the challenges and highlight the excellent odor detection threshold exhibited by animals which represents a potential opportunity to develop an accessible and non-invasive method for disease detection.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Canine Olfaction: A Pilot Study

Background

As the number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases continue to surge worldwide and new variants emerge, additional accurate, rapid, and noninvasive screening methods to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed. The number of COVID-19 cases reported globally is >455 million, and deaths have surpassed 6 million. Current diagnostic methods are expensive, invasive, and produce delayed results. While COVID-19 vaccinations are proven to help slow the spread of infection and prevent serious illness, they are not equitably available worldwide. Almost 40% of the world’s population remains unvaccinated. Evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 virus–associated volatile organic compounds found in the breath, urine, and sweat of infected individuals can be detected by canine olfaction. Medical detection dogs may be a feasible, accurate, and affordable SARS-CoV-2 screening method.

Methods

In this double-blinded, case–control, validation study, we obtained sweat samples from inpatients and outpatients tested for SARS-CoV-2 by a polymerase chain reaction test. Medical detection dogs were trained to distinguish SARS-CoV-2-positive samples from SARS-CoV-2-negative samples using reward-based reinforcement.

Results

Samples were obtained from 584 individuals (6–97 years of age; 24% positive SARS-CoV-2 samples and 76% negative SARS-CoV-2 samples). In the testing phase, all dogs performed with high accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2. The overall diagnostic sensitivity was 98%, and specificity was 92%. In a follow-up phase, 1 dog screened 153 patients for SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital setting with 96% diagnostic sensitivity and 100% specificity.

Conclusions

Canine olfaction is an accurate and feasible method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, including asymptomatic and presymptomatic infected individuals.

Scent dogs in detection of COVID-19: triple-blinded randomised trial and operational real-life screening in airport setting

Objective

To estimate scent dogs’ diagnostic accuracy in identification of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 in comparison with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We conducted a randomised triple-blinded validation trial, and a real-life study at the Helsinki-Vantaa International Airport, Finland.

Methods

Four dogs were trained to detect COVID-19 using skin swabs from individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Our controlled triple-blinded validation study comprised four identical sets of 420 parallel samples (from 114 individuals tested positive and 306 negative by RT-PCR), randomly presented to each dog over seven trial sessions. In a real-life setting the dogs screened skin swabs from 303 incoming passengers all concomitantly examined by nasal swab SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Our main outcomes were variables of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) for scent dog identification in comparison with RT-PCR.

Results

Our validation experiments had an overall accuracy of 92% (95% CI 90% to 93%), a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 89% to 94%) and a specificity of 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) compared with RT-PCR. For our dogs, trained using the wild-type virus, performance was less accurate for the alpha variant (89% for confirmed wild-type vs 36% for alpha variant, OR 14.0, 95% CI 4.5 to 43.4). In the real-life setting, scent detection and RT-PCR matched 98.7% of the negative swabs. Scant airport prevalence (0.47%) did not allow sensitivity testing; our only SARS-CoV-2 positive swab was not identified (alpha variant). However, ad hoc analysis including predefined positive spike samples showed a total accuracy of 98% (95% CI 97% to 99%).

Conclusions

This large randomised controlled triple-blinded validation study with a precalculated sample size conducted at an international airport showed that trained scent dogs screen airport passenger samples with high accuracy. One of our findings highlights the importance of continuous retraining as new variants emerge. Using scent dogs may present a valuable approach for high-throughput, rapid screening of large numbers of people.

The Use and Potential of Biomedical Detection Dogs During a Disease Outbreak

Biomedical detection dogs offer incredible advantages during disease outbreaks that are presently unmatched by current technologies, however, dogs still face hurdles of implementation due to lack of inter-governmental cooperation and acceptance by the public health community. Here, we refine the definition of a biomedical detection dog, discuss the potential applications, capabilities, and limitations of biomedical detection dogs in disease outbreak scenarios, and the safety measures that must be considered before and during deployment. Finally, we provide recommendations on how to address and overcome the barriers to acceptance of biomedical detection dogs through a dedicated research and development investment in olfactory sciences.

Dogs Detecting COVID-19 From Sweat and Saliva of Positive People: A Field Experience in Mexico

Context

Molecular tests are useful in detecting COVID-19, but they are expensive in developing countries. COVID-19-sniffing dogs are an alternative due to their reported sensitivity (>80%) and specificity (>90%). However, most of the published evidence is experimental, and there is a need to determine the performance of the dogs in field conditions. Hence, we aimed to test the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19-sniffing dogs in the field.

Methods

We trained four dogs with sweat and three dogs with saliva of COVID-19-positive patients, respectively, for 4.5 months. The samples were obtained from a health center in Hermosillo, Sonora, with the restriction to spend 5 min per patient. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Two sweat-sniffing dogs reached 76 and 80% sensitivity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the random value of 50%, and 75 and 88% specificity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the 50% value. The 95% CI of the sensitivity and specificity of the other two sweat dogs overlapped the 50% value. Two saliva-sniffing dogs had 70 and 78% sensitivity, and the 95% CI of their sensitivity and specificity did not overlap the 50% value. The 95% CI of the third dog's sensitivity and specificity overlapped the 50% value.

Conclusion

Four of the six dogs were able to detect positive samples of patients with COVID-19, with sensitivity and specificity values significantly different from random in the field. We considered the performance of the dogs promising because it is reasonable to expect that with gauze exposed for a longer time to sweat and saliva of people with COVID-19, their detection capacity would improve. The target is to reach the sensitivity range requested by the World Health Organization for the performance of an antigen test (≥80% sensitivity, ≥97% specificity). If so, dogs could become important allies for the control of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in developing countries.

Discrimination of SARS-CoV-2 Infections From Other Viral Respiratory Infections by Scent Detection Dogs

Background: Testing of possibly infected individuals remains cornerstone of containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Detection dogs could contribute to mass screening. Previous research demonstrated canines' ability to detect SARS-CoV-2-infections but has not investigated if dogs can differentiate between COVID-19 and other virus infections. Methods: Twelve dogs were trained to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive samples. Three test scenarios were performed to evaluate their ability to discriminate SARS-CoV-2-infections from viral infections of a different aetiology. Naso- and oropharyngeal swab samples from individuals and samples from cell culture both infected with one of 15 viruses that may cause COVID-19-like symptoms were presented as distractors in a randomised, double-blind study. Dogs were either trained with SARS-CoV-2 positive saliva samples (test scenario I and II) or with supernatant from cell cultures (test scenario III). Results: When using swab samples from individuals infected with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 as distractors (test scenario I), dogs detected swab samples from SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals with a mean diagnostic sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI: 66.0-81.7%) and a specificity of 95.1% (95% CI: 92.6-97.7%). In test scenario II and III cell culture supernatant from cells infected with SARS-CoV-2, cells infected with other coronaviruses and non-infected cells were presented. Dogs achieved mean diagnostic sensitivities of 61.2% (95% CI: 50.7-71.6%, test scenario II) and 75.8% (95% CI: 53.0-98.5%, test scenario III), respectively. The diagnostic specificities were 90.9% (95% CI: 87.3-94.6%, test scenario II) and 90.2% (95% CI: 81.1-99.4%, test scenario III), respectively. Conclusion: In all three test scenarios the mean specificities were above 90% which indicates that dogs can distinguish SARS-CoV-2-infections from other viral infections. However, compared to earlier studies our scent dogs achieved lower diagnostic sensitivities. To deploy COVID-19 detection dogs as a reliable screening method it is therefore mandatory to include a variety of samples from different viral respiratory tract infections in dog training to ensure a successful discrimination process.

Canine olfactory detection and its relevance to medical detection

The extraordinary olfactory sense of canines combined with the possibility to learn by operant conditioning enables dogs for their use in medical detection in a wide range of applications. Research on the ability of medical detection dogs for the identification of individuals with infectious or non-infectious diseases has been promising, but compared to the well-established and-accepted use of sniffer dogs by the police, army and customs for substances such as money, explosives or drugs, the deployment of medical detection dogs is still in its infancy. There are several factors to be considered for standardisation prior to deployment of canine scent detection dogs. Individual odours in disease consist of different volatile organic molecules that differ in magnitude, volatility and concentration. Olfaction can be influenced by various parameters like genetics, environmental conditions, age, hydration, nutrition, microbiome, conditioning, training, management factors, diseases and pharmaceuticals. This review discusses current knowledge on the function and importance of canines' olfaction and evaluates its limitations and the potential role of the dog as a biomedical detector for infectious and non-infectious diseases.

The "olfactory fingerprint": can diagnostics be improved by combining canine and digital noses?

A sniffer (detecting) dog is conventionally defined as an animal trained to use its olfactory perceptions for detecting a vast array of substances, mostly volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including those exceptionally or exclusively generated in humans bearing specific pathologies. Such an extraordinary sniffing performance translates into the capability of detecting compounds close to the femtomolar level, with performance comparable to that of current mass spectrometry-based laboratory applications. Not only can dogs accurately detect "abnormal volatilomes" reflecting something wrong happening to their owners, but they can also perceive visual, vocal and behavioral signals, which altogether would contribute to raise their alertness. Although it seems reasonable to conclude that sniffer dogs could never be considered absolutely "diagnostic" for a given disorder, several lines of evidence attest that they may serve as efficient screening aids for many pathological conditions affecting their human companions. Favorable results have been obtained in trials on cancers, diabetes, seizures, narcolepsy and migraine, whilst interesting evidence is also emerging on the capability of early and accurately identifying patients with infectious diseases. This would lead the way to proposing an "olfactory fingerprint" loop, where evidence that dogs can identify the presence of human pathologies provides implicit proof of the existence of disease-specific volatilomes, which can be studied for developing laboratory techniques. Contextually, the evidence that specific pathologies are associated with abnormal VOC generation may serve as reliable basis for training dogs to detect these compounds, even (or especially) in patients at an asymptomatic phase.

The Promise of Disease Detection Dogs in Pandemic Response: Lessons Learned From COVID-19

One of the lessons learned from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the utility of an early, flexible, and rapidly deployable disease screening and detection response. The largely uncontrolled spread of the pandemic in the United States exposed a range of planning and implementation shortcomings, which, if they had been in place before the pandemic emerged, may have changed the trajectory. Disease screening by detection dogs show great promise as a noninvasive, efficient, and cost-effective screening method for COVID-19 infection. We explore evidence of their use in infectious and chronic diseases; the training, oversight, and resources required for implementation; and potential uses in various settings. Disease detection dogs may contribute to the current and future public health pandemics; however, further research is needed to extend our knowledge and measurement of their effectiveness and feasibility as a public health intervention tool, and efforts are needed to ensure public and political support.

The detection dogs test is more sensitive than real-time PCR in screening for SARS-CoV-2

In January 2020, the coronavirus disease was declared, by the World Health Organization as a global public health emergency. Recommendations from the WHO COVID Emergency Committee continue to support strengthening COVID surveillance systems, including timely access to effective diagnostics. Questions were raised about the validity of considering the RT-PCR as the gold standard in COVID-19 diagnosis. It has been suggested that a variety of methods should be used to evaluate advocated tests. Dogs had been successfully trained and employed to detect diseases in humans. Here we show that upon training explosives detection dogs on sniffing COVID-19 odor in patients’ sweat, those dogs were able to successfully screen out 3249 individuals who tested negative for the SARS-CoV-2, from a cohort of 3290 individuals. Additionally, using Bayesian analysis, the sensitivity of the K9 test was found to be superior to the RT-PCR test performed on nasal swabs from a cohort of 3134 persons. Given its high sensitivity, short turn-around-time, low cost, less invasiveness, and ease of application, the detection dogs test lends itself as a better alternative to the RT-PCR in screening for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic individuals.

Hag-Ali and colleagues highlight the potential for using trained dogs for detecting COVID-19 positive patients. The dogs, originally trained for explosives detection, were able to detect COVID-19 positive sweat samples with a sensitivity rivaling the gold-standard RT-PCR test currently used.

Discrimination of SARS-CoV-2 infected patient samples by detection dogs: A proof of concept study

While the world awaits a widely available COVID-19 vaccine, availability of testing is limited in many regions and can be further compounded by shortages of reagents, prolonged processing time and delayed results. One approach to rapid testing is to leverage the volatile organic compound (VOC) signature of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Detection dogs, a biological sensor of VOCs, were utilized to investigate whether SARS-CoV-2 positive urine and saliva patient samples had a unique odor signature. The virus was inactivated in all training samples with either detergent or heat treatment. Using detergent-inactivated urine samples, dogs were initially trained to find samples collected from hospitalized patients confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, while ignoring samples collected from controls. Dogs were then tested on their ability to spontaneously recognize heat-treated urine samples as well as heat-treated saliva from hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Dogs successfully discriminated between infected and uninfected urine samples, regardless of the inactivation protocol, as well as heat-treated saliva samples. Generalization to novel samples was limited, particularly after intensive training with a restricted sample set. A unique odor associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection present in human urine as well as saliva, provides impetus for the development of odor-based screening, either by electronic, chemical, or biological sensing methods. The use of dogs for screening in an operational setting will require training with a large number of novel SARS-CoV-2 positive and confirmed negative samples.

COVID-19 detection by dogs: from physiology to field application-a review article

For years, the dog, man's best friend, was the most widely employed scent-detector tool for civilian and military purposes. Recently, many studies highlighted the role of canine olfactory ability in the medical field, specifically in detecting different infectious, metabolic and neoplastic conditions. The objective of this literature review is to clarify the rationale behind dog's ability to detect diseases, to assess the possible application for COVID-19 detection and to discuss the evidence available on the matter. Available evidence shows that properly trained disease-detector dogs are an efficient tool for identification of specific disease-associated volatile organic compounds marker profiles for a particular disease. And since COVID-19 positive persons have a specific volatilome different from non-infected persons, they can be recognised by the dogs, by sniffing different body fluids consequently aiding in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Possible applications of dogs as COVID-19 detectors will be an easy real-time mobile diagnostic aid with low cost and good performance. More evidence is needed to be able to describe standardised measures concerning the best fluid to test, testing procedure, time of possible detection according to disease evolution, risks associated with the dog exposure and to translate the good results in study setting into the real-life operational one.

Can the detection dog alert on COVID-19 positive persons by sniffing axillary sweat samples? A proof-of-concept study

The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to evaluate if trained dogs could discriminate between sweat samples from symptomatic COVID-19 positive individuals (SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive) and those from asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals. The study was conducted at 2 sites (Paris, France, and Beirut, Lebanon), followed the same training and testing protocols, and involved six detection dogs (three explosive detection dogs, one search and rescue dog, and two colon cancer detection dogs). A total of 177 individuals were recruited for the study (95 symptomatic COVID-19 positive and 82 asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals) from five hospitals, and one underarm sweat sample per individual was collected. The dog training sessions lasted between one and three weeks. Once trained, the dog had to mark the COVID-19 positive sample randomly placed behind one of three or four olfactory cones (the other cones contained at least one COVID-19 negative sample and between zero and two mocks). During the testing session, a COVID-19 positive sample could be used up to a maximum of three times for one dog. The dog and its handler were both blinded to the COVID-positive sample location. The success rate per dog (i.e., the number of correct indications divided by the number of trials) ranged from 76% to 100%. The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the estimated success rate was most of the time higher than the success rate obtained by chance after removing the number of mocks from calculations. These results provide some evidence that detection dogs may be able to discriminate between sweat samples from symptomatic COVID-19 individuals and those from asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals. However, due to the limitations of this proof-of-concept study (including using some COVID-19 samples more than once and potential confounding biases), these results must be confirmed in validation studies.

A detection dog for obstructive sleep apnea: could it work in diagnostics?

PURPOSE

We have previously demonstrated that dogs can be trained to distinguish the urine of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) from that of healthy controls based on olfaction. Encouraged by these promising results, we wanted to investigate if a detection dog could work as a screening tool for OSA. The objective of this study was to prospectively assess the dogs' ability to identify sleep apnea in patients with OSA suspicion.

METHODS

Urine samples were collected from 50 patients suspected of having OSA. The urine sample was classified as positive for OSA when the patient had a respiratory event index of 5/h or more. The accuracy of two trained dogs in identifying OSA was tested in a prospective blinded setting.

RESULTS

Both of the dogs correctly detected approximately half of the positive and negative samples. There were no statistically significant differences in the dogs' ability to recognize more severe cases of OSA, as compared to milder cases.

CONCLUSION

According to our study, dogs cannot be used to screen for OSA in clinical settings, most likely due to the heterogenic nature of OSA.

Sniffing animals as a diagnostic tool in infectious diseases

BACKGROUND

Scents and odours characterize some microbes when grown in the laboratory, and experienced clinicians can diagnose patients with some infectious diseases based on their smell. Animal sniffing is an innate behaviour, and animals' olfactory acuity is used for detecting people, weapons, bombs, narcotics and food.

OBJECTIVES

We briefly summarized current knowledge regarding the use of sniffing animals to diagnose some infectious diseases and the potential use of scent-based diagnostic instruments in microbiology.

SOURCES

Information was sought through PubMed and extracted from peer-reviewed literature published between January 2000 and September 2019 and from reliable online news. The search terms 'odour', 'scent', 'bacteria', 'diagnostics', 'tuberculosis', 'malaria' and 'volatile compounds' were used.

CONTENT

Four major areas of using sniffing animals are summarized. Dogs have been used to reliably detect stool associated with toxigenic Clostridioides difficile and for surveillance. Dogs showed high sensitivity and moderate specificity for detecting urinary tract infections in comparison to culture, especially for Escherichia coli. African giant pouched rats showed superiority for diagnosing tuberculosis over microscopy, but inferiority to culture/molecular methods. Several approaches for detecting malaria by analysing host skin odour or exhaled breath have been explored successfully. Some microbial infections produce specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can be analysed by spectrometry, metabolomics or other analytical approaches to replace animal sniffing.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of sniffing animal studies are fascinating, and animal sniffing can provide intermediate diagnostic solutions for some infectious diseases. Lack of reproducibility, and cost of animal training and housing are major drawbacks for wider implementation of sniffing animals. The ultimate goal is to understand the biological background of this animal ability and to characterize the specific VOCs that animals are recognizing. VOC identification, improvement of odour sampling methods and development of point-of-care instruments could allow implementation of scent-based tests for major human pathogens.

Canine Olfactory Thresholds to Amyl Acetate in a Biomedical Detection Scenario

Dogs' abilities to respond to concentrations of odorant molecules are generally deemed superior to electronic sensors. This sensitivity has been used traditionally in many areas; but is a more recent innovation within the medical field. As a bio-detection sensor for human diseases such as cancer and infections, dogs often need to detect volatile organic compounds in bodily fluids such as urine and blood. Although the limits of olfactory sensitivity in dogs have been studied since the 1960s, there is a gap in our knowledge concerning these limits in relation to the concentration of odorants presented in a fluid phase. Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate olfactory detection thresholds to an inert substance, amyl acetate presented in a liquid phase. Ten dogs were trained in a “Go/No go” single scent-detection task using an eight-choice carousel apparatus. They were trained to respond to the presence of solutions of amyl acetate diluted to varying degrees in mineral oil by sitting in front of the positive sample, and not responding to the 7 other control samples. Training and testing took place in an indoor room with the same handler throughout using a food reward. After 30 weeks of training, using a forward chaining technique, dogs were tested for their sensitivity. The handler did not assist the dog during the search and was blind to the concentration of amyl acetate tested and the position of the target in the carousel. The global olfactory threshold trend for each dog was estimated by fitting a least-squares logistic curve to the association between the proportion of true positives and amyl acetate concentration. Results show an olfactory detection threshold for fluid mixtures ranging from 40 parts per billion to 1.5 parts per trillion. There was considerable inter-dog difference in sensitivity, even though all dogs were trained in the same way and worked without the assistance of the handler. This variation highlights factors to be considered in future work assessing olfactory detection performance by dogs.

A detection dog for obstructive sleep apnea

PURPOSE

We sought to assess whether a dog can be trained to distinguish obstructive sleep apnea patients from healthy controls based on the olfactory detection of urine.

METHODS

Urine samples were collected from 23 adult male obstructive sleep apnea patients and from 20 voluntary adult male volunteers. Three dogs were trained through reinforced operant conditioning.

RESULTS

Two of the three dogs correctly detected two thirds of obstructive sleep apnea patients (p < 0.000194 and p < 0.000003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that dogs can be trained to distinguish obstructive sleep apnea patients from healthy controls based on the smell of urine. Potentially, dogs could be utilized to identify novel biomarkers or possibly screen for obstructive sleep apnea.

Identifying environmental reservoirs of Clostridium difficile with a scent detection dog: preliminary evaluation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Prompted by an article describing a dog trained to detect Clostridium difficile in patients, our institution evaluated a dog's ability to detect C. difficile scent from equipment and surfaces to assist in strategic deployment of adjunctive cleaning measures.

METHODS

An expert in drug and explosives scent dog handling trained a canine to identify odours from pure cultures and/or faecal specimens positive for C. difficile. Methods used to assess explosive and drug detection dogs were adapted and included evaluation of (i) odour recognition, using containers positive and negative for the scent of C. difficile, and of (ii) search capability, on a simulation ward with hidden scents. After demonstration that the canine could accurately and reliably detect the scent of C. difficile, formal assessments of all clinical areas began.

FINDINGS

Odour recognition (N = 75 containers) had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 97%. Search capability was 80% sensitive and 92.9% specific after removal of results from one room where dog and trainer fatigue influenced performance. Both odour recognition and search capability had an overall sensitivity of 92.3% and specificity of 95.4%. The clinical unit sweeps over a period of five months revealed a sensitivity of 100% in alerting on positive quality control hides. These clinical unit sweeps also resulted in 83 alerts during 49 sweep days.

CONCLUSION

A dog can be trained to accurately and reliably detect C. difficile odour from environmental sources to guide the best deployment of adjunctive cleaning measures and can be successfully integrated into a quality infection control programme.