Assessment of accuracy of detection dog signaling behavior for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A Canadian study
Mbutiwi, F. I. N.; Otis, C.; Schiller, I.; LaChance, M.; Martin, L.; Jammal, A.; Odita, A.; Agbaje, N.; Khatib, A.; Dendukuri, N.; Tamim, H.; Troncy, E.; Carabin, H.
Show abstract
BackgroundDogs trained to metabolomics detection can identify pathological changes through their refined smelling sense. During the COVID-19 pandemic, studies worldwide evaluated Detection Dog Signaling Behavior (DDSB) for SARS-CoV-2. However, most statistical approaches failed to account for key sources of bias, potentially distorting performance estimates. This study aimed to estimate DDSB accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a Canadian population while assessing the impact of selected sources of bias on performance estimates. MethodsParticipants attending the COVID-19 assessment clinic at St. Josephs Health Centre, Toronto, were recruited between October and December 2021. Each provided a nasopharyngeal swab for reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and three sweat samples for canine detection. Three dogs were trained to detect SARS-CoV-2 in sweat samples. Validation sessions were video recorded and independently reviewed by two blinded observers. DDSB diagnostic accuracy was estimated against RT-PCR, evaluating the impact of ignoring its imperfect accuracy and repeated sniffing of the same samples during validation. ResultsAmong 2,358 participants (mean age: 34.7 years; 55.7% female), 437 contributed to training. Validation tests included 146 unique participants (25 RT-PCR positive, 121 negative). Assuming RT-PCR was imperfect, DDSB posterior median sensitivity ranged from 67% (95% credible interval [CrI]: 29%-97%) to 78% (95% CrI: 41%-99%), and specificity from 67% (95% CrI: 53%-79%) to 77% (95% CrI: 65%-87%) across the three dogs. Assuming RT-PCR was perfect, sensitivity decreased by 7.9% to 9%, while specificity remained unchanged. Including repeated positive samples without adjustment did not affect specificity estimates but overestimated sensitivity by 7.9% to 13.4% (imperfect RT-PCR) and 11.4% to 18.3% (perfect RT-PCR). ConclusionDDSB shows potential as a non-invasive screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our results highlight the challenges of designing such studies and the need for standardized training and validation procedures to ensure the reliability and validity of DDSB.
Matching journals
The top 14 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.