A Lesson in Standardization – Subtle Aspects of the Processing of Samples Can Greatly Affect Dogs' Learning

Abstract

Training new medical odors presents challenges in procuring sufficient target samples, and suitably matched controls. Organizations are often forced to choose between using fewer samples and risking dogs learning individuals or using differently sourced samples. Even when aiming to standardize all aspects of collection, processing, storage and presentation, this risks there being subtle differences which dogs use to discriminate, leading to artificially high performance, not replicable when novel samples are presented. We describe lessons learnt during early training of dogs to detect prostate cancer from urine. Initially, six dogs were trained to discriminate between hospital-sourced target and externally-sourced controls believed to be processed and stored the same way. Dogs performed well: mean sensitivity 93.5% (92.2-94.5) and specificity 87.9% (78.2-91.9). When training progressed to include hospital-sourced controls, dogs greatly decreased in specificity 67.3% (43.2-83.3). Alerted to a potential issue, we carried out a methodical, investigation. We presented new strategically chosen samples to the dogs and conducted a logistic regression analysis to ascertain which factor most affected specificity. We discovered the two sets of samples varied in a critical aspect, hospital-processed samples were tested by dipping the urinalysis stick into the sample, whilst for externally sourced samples a small amount of urine was poured onto the stick. Dogs had learnt to distinguish target aided by the odor of this stick. This highlights the importance of considering every aspect of sample processing even when using urine, often believed to be less susceptible to contamination than media like breath.

Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study

“…Alternatively, the dogs may have detected their own saliva on the sample that they selected previously. Dogs are sensitive to slight differences in sample processing, such as how samples are exposed to a test strip (26). In this study, the same samples were used for both dogs, which may have caused odor contamination across multiple sample presentations.…”

A Novel Method for Training the Interdiction of Restricted and Hazardous Biological Materials by Detection Dogs

“…All targets and distractors and their holding containers were changed after each trial. Baskets, basket holders, scent wheel apparatus, and POCR devices/petri dishes were only handled using nitrile gloves and metal forceps to eliminate human scent ( 29 ). Baskets and petri dishes were sanitized with high heat after each use in a commercial dishwasher (up to 68°C).…”

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

“…Guest et al examined the use of scent dogs to detect prostate cancer in urine samples from afflicted patients. 21 After training the dogs with prepared samples, performance was excellent (mean sensitivity 93.5% and specificity 87.9%). But when performance was tested on hospital-based samples, specificity dropped precipitously 67.3% (43.2-83.3).…”

“…Although the sensory capability of dogs is well known, the training of the dogs to identify an odor that is specific to the disease of interest, but still generalize the odor across a wide variety of individuals is a challenge 20 . Due to requirements for sufficient number of both positive and appropriate control samples, the necessary diversity of samples to represent the population to be screened, the appropriate handling and storage of samples to preserve the odor, prevent disease transmission and avoid sample contamination, there exists a need to standardize research protocols and conduct regular double blind testing to determine each dog's sensitivity and specificity for the disease of interest 15,20,21 .…”