Back

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.

2026-03-10 public and global health
10.64898/2026.03.04.26347154 medRxiv
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.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 16%
10.8%
2
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.6%
3
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.1%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.1%
5
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.8%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
7
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
8
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
9
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
11
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
13
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
14
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
50% of probability mass above
15
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
17
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
19
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.5%
21
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
22
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
23
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
24
Data in Brief
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
25
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.1%
26
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
27
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
28
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
29
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
30
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%