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 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Is there a higher risk of exposure to Coxiella burnetii for pre-clinical veterinary students? 93%
- Evaluation of a multi-species SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test 91%
- Evidence of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in domestic cats living with owners with a history of COVID-19 in Lima, Peru 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Responses of the putative trachoma vector, Musca sorbens, to volatile semiochemicals from human faeces 93%
- Target product profiles for new diagnostics to inform strongyloidiasis control programs 92%
- Diagnostic serology test comparison for Q fever and Rift Valley fever in humans and livestock from pastoral communities 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 screening in educational settings and children aged < 12 years 94%
- Implementation of a Rapid RT-LAMP Saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 Testing Program in the Workplace 93%
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Validation of a rapid, saliva-based, and ultra-sensitive SARS-CoV-2 screening system for a pandemic-scale infection surveillance 93%
- A multidimensional analysis of the risk of infection with Ehrlichia canis among urban dogs in Iquitos, Peru. 93%
- Are commercial antibody assays substantially underestimating SARS-CoV-2 ever infection? An analysis on a population-based sample in a high exposure setting 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.