Dog Sniffs Out Cancer In Human Urine

randomErr writes: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences found out that a scent-trained dog can identify thyroid cancer in human urine samples 88.2 percent of the time. Frankie, a male German shepherd mix identified the presence of cancerous cells in 30 out of 34 samples. The shepherd was only slightly less accurate than a standard thyroid biopsy. This offers the possibility of a cheaper, less invasive approach to diagnosis of the illness said Donald Bodenner, M.D., PhD, the study's senior investigator.

Comments

the 11.8%?

[Anonymous Coward]

are they false positives or failure to detect?

if it's false positives, that'll get found later....... not a big deal.

if it's a complete miss-- ouch...

Re:the 11.8%?

[ganjadude]

good point. but I think it would make more sense to do things like this

dog sniffs - finds nothing, get a second opinion. I think when it comes to cancer and other bad diseases a second opinion is always warranted.

Re:the 11.8%?

[Karmashock]

They should have done it with rats. They're using rats in Africa to verify malaria in patients. The rats can tell you instantly if someone has malaria where as the cell culture tests take so much time that it is often too late at that point.

The virtue of rats is that they're cheap. Some rats will work out and some will try but just be shitty at it. When you're training dogs the expense is such that you don't want to dispense with a failure. But if you're doing rats then who cares. It is so much cheaper that you can use second opinion rats. Get multiple samples and run them independently by several rats. If one rat fucks up it isn't a big deal.

Re:the 11.8%?

[ShanghaiBill]

Another thing that would make sense would be to try other dogs, including other breeds. Then give them more training. Then mate the best cancer detectors. Within a few generations (2 years/generation for dogs) we could likely get the error rate below 5%. That is better than the biopsy, andlthough the dogs may have false positives, so can the biopsy.

Re:the 11.8%?

[ganjadude]

true, I didnt bother saying that because i assumed that was a given but you are right. keep breeding the dogs until you get a bunch of them

Re:the 11.8%?

[cfalcon]

A failed diagnostic dog is still a dog. Someone will likely have use for that dog. Perhaps it costs some dog somewhere a home, but you know that's not strictly the case.

Re:the 11.8%?

[Karmashock]

And a failed diagnostic rat costs a fraction of that money to train and if it fails you neither feel bad nor are especially judged for flushing it or feeding it to a hungry snake.

Re:the 11.8%?

[Anonymous Coward]

So your theory is that if rats can do one particular thing then they can do anything you want?

Re:the 11.8%?

[Karmashock]

No, its that they are doing it already in africa and they're cheaper... and their noses are often a lot better than most dog breeds.

So... doing it with dogs is more expensive, likely less effective, and less viable for redundancy and error checking.

So... its sub optimal.

Re:the 11.8%?

[NoKaOi]

are they false positives or failure to detect?

if it's false positives, that'll get found later....... not a big deal.

if it's a complete miss-- ouch...

If this becomes more widely used, either way, this would probably not be something that would be done in lieu of a biopsy. If a doctor had reason to suspect cancer, they'd likely still do a biopsy. This could be done in addition to the biopsy as an additional datapoint, but mostly this could be done as part of a routine screening. You're not going to get a thyroid biopsy as part of a routine physical, but a K9 scent screening could be added to a standard urinalysis.

Re:the 11.8%?

[turp182]

Wouldn't any result involve a 2nd opinion?

Cases:
1. Dog finds nothing, perform biopsy, just in case (2nd opinion).
2. Dog finds cancer, perform biopsy to confirm (2nd opinion).

Or would you perform surgery on a dog's recommendation without a medical test?

Seems this dog would be a hypochondriac's best friend...

Re:the 11.8%?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Before running any test, ask yourself what you're going to do if the test succeeds. Then ask yourself what you're going to do if the test fails.

If they're the same thing, then don't run the test.

In other words, if you're going to ignore the dog, don't bother with the dog.

Re:the 11.8%?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is a false positive, would the stress of knowing that you have cancer cause said cancer, thus turning it into an actual positive?

Re:the 11.8%?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thyroid cancer is such a slow moving cancer that frequently gets overdiagnosed that the sniff test every 3 months makes a lot of sense.

Not sure I want a dog sniffing my private parts

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, it is cold up here in Canada.

Re:Not sure I want a dog sniffing my private parts

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Then again, it is cold up here in Canada.

Don't worry! There are humans BEGGING for this training!

Thyroid, lung, breast, melanoma, prostate . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

A little bit of a yawn. Dogs can smell breast cancer and lung cancer from breath, and melanoma from the skin itself, and prostate from urine . . . I'd post the cites but there are so many of them. Don't look for dogs at cancer centers any time soon, though.

Re:Thyroid, lung, breast, melanoma, prostate . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

A little bit of a yawn. Dogs can smell breast cancer and lung cancer from breath, and melanoma from the skin itself, and prostate from urine . . . I'd post the cites but there are so many of them. Don't look for dogs at cancer centers any time soon, though.

And sitting around yawning about it is the reason the corrupt system will continue to post the No Dogs Allowed signs outside cancer centers.

Perhaps your insurance premiums will wake you one day.

You have the choice

[Anonymous Coward]

State of the art medical diagnostics for 18.000$ and 3 weeks waiting period or...

a dog sniffing your piss for 18$ an a waiting period of 15 seconds.

The dogs marks its targets, moist feet are about the only drawback.

Re:You have the choice

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you talking about? This is a way to detect thyroid cancer and you're bitching about it? What a moron.

Re:You have the choice

[fahrbot-bot]

and a life time of being on the Pre-Existing Conditions black list. I don't think the ER covers much of the cancer stuff. If you get layed off at 60 just do some time in jail till you can get on medicare

If you're in the US, you can no longer can be denied medical insurance based on pre-existing conditions nor can your premiums be different because of those conditions - unless, of course, the Republicans succeed in abolishing the ACA.

Re:You have the choice

[fahrbot-bot]

If you're in the US, you can no longer can be denied medical insurance based on pre-existing conditions nor can your premiums be different because of those conditions - unless, of course, the Republicans succeed in abolishing the ACA.

That is simply not true. It is a State matter, and it does differ among the 13 States that created ACA exchanges. I know of at least one state that adopted the ACA except the pre-existing condition inclusion.

You are flatly incorrect. The ACA is a Federal Law and the only thing the states can opt-opt of is the Medicaid expansion - as per the Supreme Court ruling.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Pre Existing Condition Insurance Plan which was a *temporary* measure (that states could choose to participate in) that expired in 2014:

The temporary program covers a broad range of health benefits and is designed as a bridge for people with pre-existing conditions who cannot obtain health insurance coverage in today’s private insurance market.

In 2014, all Americans – regardless of their health status – will have access to affordable coverage either through their employer or through Health Insurance Marketplaces, and insurers will be prohibited from charging more or denying coverage to anyone based on the state of their health.

Re:You have the choice

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong, it is a federal mandate. Pre-existing condition exclusions are prohibited in all health insurance plans. It makes no difference if you get your insurance through your employer, a state exchange, or the federal exchange.

However, there is an exception to the pre-existing rule in the grandfathered individual health insurance policy that was purchased on or before Mar 23, 2010. Obviously, these plans can’t enroll new people after Mar 23, 2010, but companies can continue to offer the grandfathered plans to people who were enrolled before that date. These plans may also lose their grandfathered status if they make certain significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers.

Re:You have the choice

[Jane Q. Public]

You are flatly incorrect. The ACA is a Federal Law and the only thing the states can opt-opt of is the Medicaid expansion - as per the Supreme Court ruling.

Sorry, dude. Go try to get insurance in Washington State with a pre-existing condition. Good luck with that. You can get your insurance easily enough (via an ACA state exchange), but they won't pay for your pre-existing condition.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Pre Existing Condition Insurance Plan which was a *temporary* measure (that states could choose to participate in) that expired in 2014:

No. That's exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about.

I have a relative who has worked in a doctor's office there for many years. She handles all the insurance claims. She damned well knows what she's talking about. I was frankly skeptical when I heard about this, thinking it was against the ACA rules. But nope. That's the way it works in Washington.

Re:You have the choice

[fahrbot-bot]

It looks like we-re *both* correct. (Though I'm more so.) According to this Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions:

Being sick won't keep you from getting coverage

Your insurance company can't turn you down or charge you more because of your pre-existing health or medical condition like asthma, back pain, diabetes, or cancer. Once you have insurance, they can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition.

This is true even if you’ve been turned down or refused coverage due to a pre-existing condition in the past.

One exception: Grandfathered plans

The only exception to the pre-existing coverage rule is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions.

If you have one of these plans you can switch to a Marketplace plan that covers pre-existing conditions.

So your relative, who has worked in a doctor's office for many years and "damn well knows what she's talking about", should know all this and tell patients with grand-fathered insurance plans to switch to a Marketplace plan that does.

Re:You have the choice

[Jane Q. Public]

It looks like we-re *both* correct. (Though I'm more so.)

You're only quoting HealthCare.gov. Why didn't you look into the actual exception I TOLD YOU existed? My guess is because you simply thought I was lying, and couldn't be bothered to check.

We ARE both right, in a way, but not in the way you seem to think. States DID have the ability to choose to go with the temporary Federal pre-existing plan, or do its own. Washington did its own (as I mentioned originally). And IT DID NOT work the same as the Federal plan.

The Washington plan isn't what most people would consider pre-existing condition coverage. It included a 6-month waiting period. Lots of people could die while waiting those 6 months.

HOWEVER, having said that: (A) there was a separate high-risk pool for people who had grave conditions, and (B) the law WAS supposed to have been amended late last year, though I have not found any documentation of such change.

Re:You have the choice

[fahrbot-bot]

If you had bothered to actually *read* the New-PCIP-WA Brochure on the "About PCIP-WA" site you linked to, you would have seen this:

The program will end January 1, 2014, when full health reform takes effect and people cannot be denied insurance due to a preexisting condition.

So, now I'm quoting a Washington State site - Jesus, get a clue and/or learn how to research.

Re:You have the choice

[Jane Q. Public]

If you had bothered to actually *read* the New-PCIP-WA Brochure on the "About PCIP-WA" site you linked to, you would have seen this:

I did read it, and as I said, the law changed in 2014. (I think I wrote "late" which was wrong, but permit me that one error.)

Just as I said... we WERE both right. Just not the way you first said.

Jesus, yourself. Learn to read comments. If I didn't know what it said, I wouldn't have linked you to it. Oh... wait... those aren't the pages I linked you to. But the ones I did said pretty much the same thing.

Washington State DID have a plan that called for 6-month waiting period for pre-existing conditions. It did not follow the Federal plan. But it WAS phased out in 2013... except... read the pages again... people on the PCIP-WA were eligible for the FEDERAL PCIP plan, not one from Washington State.

So quit oversimplifying. We were both right, to a certain degree, but you were nowhere near AS right as you claimed.

What would the combined accuracy be?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not RTFA but I'm curious as to whether both the dog and biopsy tend to fail on the same samples, or if we could approach near perfect accuracy by using both?

Re:What would the combined accuracy be?

[Jane Q. Public]

I did not RTFA but I'm curious as to whether both the dog and biopsy tend to fail on the same samples, or if we could approach near perfect accuracy by using both?

The problem with scent dogs -- as we have found to our dismay with drug-sniffing dogs -- is that while they CAN distinguish and react to the odors they are trained to detect, instead, in independent tests, they did not. Instead they reacted to subtle cues from their handlers, in preference to the odors they were trained to detect.

The cues were so subtle that the handlers themselves often did not realize they were sending signals.

Having a tool that CAN distinguish these things easily is not the same as having one that WILL.

Re:What would the combined accuracy be?

[arth1]

I have doubts whether these were blind tests where the dog handler and observers were completely unaware of which samples were positive.
I hope I am wrong, and that this, unlike drug and explosive dogs, has some actual valid science behind it.

Re:What would the combined accuracy be?

[techno-vampire]

The big problem with explosive-sniffing dogs is that what they're smelling isn't the explosives it's the nitrates used in them. If you've been working with fertilizer and haven't washed your hands, the dog will respond the same way as it would to explosives. I don't know about the drug-sniffers, but I suspect that there are similar issues with them.

Re:What would the combined accuracy be?

[cfalcon]

BIG difference. Drug sniffing dogs primarily exist as a way for cops to fuck with the people they always wanted to fuck with. The fact that they are being used to ferret out private property is a big enough deal in the first place, but you would obviously expect them to try to please their trainers, and their trainers want to search THAT GUY for *reasons*. Reasons that they can't say out loud. Maybe the policeman has a hunch... or maybe he's just a racist asshole.

So the actual role of the drug dogs is just to give the cops a reason. That's not their claimed purpose, but the operators of the technology are just looking for excuses to infringe on liberties.

This scenario is, they actually want the dog to sniff out the disease. If you're interested in a dog who can diagnose, you don't gain anything from false responses.

Re:What would the combined accuracy be?

[pr0fessor]

When I was in highs school I had a friend who is allergic to dogs that was stopped by an officer. They searched him and his car and called in a dog. He protested because of allergies so they were all the more determined to search him and the car with dog because they thought he was trying to hide something. Nope they ended up taking him to the hospital and since he was a minor his parents filed a complaint that resulted in the officers' terminations. Afterward they worked as security guards they would scowl and follow us around the mall.

Re:What would the combined accuracy be?

[dinfinity]

Accuracy tells us very, very little, without information on the number of false positives. In short, we need to know what the chance is that you have cancer if the dog indicates you do, which is TP / (TP + FP). It's easy to see that the number of FPs has a big influence.

Explained further here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
This is one of the best visualizations of it: http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/201...

See also this Wikipedia page for a good overview of different measures like accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

The Talisman came out when?

[rmdingler]

The canine olfactory organ is thousands of orders of magnitude more sensitive than ours... identifying drugs, bombs, and cancers is rudimentary to our best friend.

Yet, despite this superpower, they choose roll around in the foulest smelling dead shit they can find.

Are there smells we cannot appreciate in the same vein that there are sounds we cannot hear?

Re:The Talisman came out when?

[DigiShaman]

Yet, despite this superpower, they choose roll around in the foulest smelling dead shit they can find

Obviously your primitive sense of smell can't appreciate the wonderful bouquet of such odors that a dog can.

Re:The Talisman came out when?

[dissy]

Are there smells we cannot appreciate in the same vein that there are sounds we cannot hear?

Apparently so. People tell me all the time I have a unique smell that cannot be appreciated!

Re:The Talisman came out when?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do dogs experience serendipity?

Some people sense much more than others. Smoking and harsh chemicals certainly isn't helpful. There's also the matter of becoming an attentive observer. Some people seem to be deliberately oblivious to anything not essential to a task, the uncreative types that want to bypass learning and just have an immediate reward. It's the same with subtle tastes. Spending time tasting and experimenting with cooking helps tune awareness. Sight is similar but experiences a baseline drift. It you want to annoy some drug users, point out use causing a subtle shift in their skin color. If they act paranoid, joke with them and say that the satellites can see it too. Time spent with photography or calibrating monitors helps. And it is the same way for sound, the character not the sensitivity. I'm not sure if using one sense really dulls others. I think it's more a matter of being motivated. But some talk about right-brain versus left-brain aptitudes shifting with practice. It isn't all just the sensory input. It's also like growing a mental skill when one learns to read subtle facial expressions or body language.
Beyond that it helps to develop the critical but unstressed balance of focus, insightful reflection and perspective of your senses and knowledge that tends to result in magical powers of serendipity or gaydar LOL Closed-minded people don't as well.

In the case of this cancer I suspect that the dog is actually smelling the effect that a shift in thyroid function has on chemistry in other parts of the body, instead of smell the cancer cells directly. I'm not sure what else dogs pick up on. Some of their preferences of what seems to be human personality might actually be scent based. It would be interesting to know if it's pheromones, some other specific hormones, things related to stress/anxiety or who knows what. Some of it might be manner of approach, but some dogs that back away from most people find exceptions. And those people find that same response from other dogs that are selective that way. It's as if thoughts couple without even the silent words of humans, where the thought conveyed without obvious means is a mutual emotional response. It's sort of like the feeling experienced when seeing a long-separated good friend. I believe it's likely subtle chemical and body language cues.

The scent of people varies widely. Some of the nastier recreational stimulants and certain medications (some psych meds??) drive scents that stand out in a bad way Some bugs that bite when you eat bananas or pineapple don't seem to want to after you eat broccoli. Italian seasonings seem to affect pee and the pits. I think cabbage affects the pee negatively but it's been a while. Some scents must be stronger when one is dehydrated as opposed to flushed-through with beer. I'm trying to remember what gives pee a phenolic smell (like that of freshly cracked old brittle brown circuit boards). That might be when the kidneys are overtaxed. (goes with a feeling of being slightly poisoned) I've sensed a difference that seems to be along racial lines (in a favorable way). These things must be extremely intense to dogs.

Then there's the female smell that attracts horses? There must have been a newsgroup for these things. a scent FAQ

Re:The Talisman came out when?

[quenda]

The canine olfactory organ is thousands of orders of magnitude

Something tells me you're an arts graduate :)

what are we missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is the dog smelling, and how can we replicate the process without the dog?

Re:what are we missing?

[Irate Engineer]

Why do you hate dogs?

Re:what are we missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is the dog smelling

pee

and how can we replicate the process without the dog?

hang you face first in a toilet. More questions?

Re:what are we missing?

[hey!]

Well bears and sharks have a more sensitive sense of smell than dogs, but I expect patients will have a problem with their bedside manner.

Re:what are we missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't hate birds, yet I still fly by plane.

Re:what are we missing?

[cfalcon]

What exactly is the human planning / thinking, and how can we replicate that process without the human?

Possible isn't easy. Dogs are redic capable at stuff like this.

Re:what are we missing?

[NormalVisual]

"Well Mr. Smith, the good news is that your wife doesn't have cancer. The bad news is that the diagnostic equipment ate her."

Re:what are we missing?

[forty-2]

Because you can't cram them into the body tricorder and they don't always make the right noise when you waive them over patients.

So When the Next Dog Sniffs My Junk

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I assume it's a trained cancer sniffing dog, performing a medical assessment?

Why not multiple dogs?

[Irate Engineer]

Why just one dog (and why Frankie)?

Why don't they use 10 dogs and run the sample by each? If 9 out of 10 dogs agree that the sample indicates cancer, wouldn't that reduce the potential for missed diagnoses or false positives? No risk of adverse affects unlike biopsies (unless you're allergic to dogs).

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried a SIMD array of dogs before realizing the room had a CAT5 cable in it, and all hell broke loose. They're not eager to repeat the experiment.

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[BennyB2k4]

That theory doesn't hold if all 10 dogs are missing the same 20% due to a common failure mode.

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[Anonymous Coward]

CAT9!

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[jblues]

You mean like a Beau-woof cluster?

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[pr0fessor]

No risk of adverse affects unlike biopsies (unless you're allergic to dogs).

I'm going to say you could probably use a sample cup instead of taking the dog into bathroom with you, that way there are no allergy problems.

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[Firethorn]

Why don't they use 10 dogs and run the sample by each?

Because research funding is limited, and it's difficult to train the proper behavior. They might of tried training 10 dogs, and only Frankie gave good results.

As for missed diagnoses or false positive, you're expecting the tests to be independent(statistics term, means each dog has the same chance to be right/wrong no matter what the other dogs are). They're probably not.

For example, it might be that Frankie is sniffing for a specific set of chemical markers that just aren't present when he ends up with a false negative. The markers might not be strong enough, they might be there tomorrow, there might be some bit of diet that brings it out. Without further research, we just don't know.

So you could have a raging tumor and the dog's won't trigger on it because, for whatever reason, your cancer doesn't give out the necessary 'smell'.

Now, yes, 3-5 dogs 'cooperating' can help moderate other factors, but you still have to be careful.

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[Anonymous Coward]

:)
Your post is under-appreciated (just Score: 1).

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[taylorius]

An array of dogs sniffing one sample would be MISD, rather than SIMD.

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[tlhIngan]

Training dogs is expensive, especially if you're not sure of the results. Will a dog be able to sniff for the biomarkers for cancer? There's anecdotal evidence prior that maybe they could (untrained dogs have been shown to detect cancers in their owners).

But to train one specially to detect the cancer can be quite expensive (most service dogs cost around $30,000 and 2 years to train from puppyhood, and that excludes the cost of those found unsuitable partway through. Knowing breeders who do donate to service dog organizations, they try to select those who they feel make the best candidates, but sometimes it just doesn't work out. Of course, these are reputable breeders and it turns out when you do all this, there's not actually a lot of money left over).

Then you need to figure out which breed might make the best detector dogs - the time and cost it takes to raise just one dog for the study means by the time you get around to trying to reproduce it, it's going to be several more years. (In the meantime, said study dog will be put to work and studied more to see how effective it is over time).

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[Irate Engineer]

Thanks for the reply, good thoughts. The same issues affect other detection tests - if they aren't looking for the right chemical or chemicals they might miss it entirely.

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[Firethorn]

Given that my previous work did drug testing(I called it 'golden flow'), I read up some on it. Turns out they normally use a 'cheap' test that actually has a pretty high false-positive rate. There's quite a few things you could eat or ingest that aren't drugs that would set it off.

Of course, they knew this, so out came the more specific, but also more expensive test. Then, if you still popped positive, then they'd retest, and if you still came up positive, then you were in trouble.

Same deal with cancer. Different people are different, genetics, environment, lifestyle. Cancers are different as well. After all, most of them are from independent mutations. So you look for markers that tend to be present when the cancer is present, but in many cases 'tend' is just that.

Much like how the rare person can have the flu and not develop a fever from it.

Re:Why not multiple dogs?

[Firethorn]

Training dogs is expensive, especially if you're not sure of the results. Will a dog be able to sniff for the biomarkers for cancer? There's anecdotal evidence prior that maybe they could (untrained dogs have been shown to detect cancers in their owners).

Yeah, 'difficult' to me encompasses 'expensive', but I should have probably specified this more. Step 1 to training a dog to sniff cancer is... figuring out how to train a dog to sniff cancer. ;)

We can get a start with looking at how we train dogs to sniff drugs, explosives, and cadavers, but that's just a start. Like I said, they might of started with 10 dogs, and out of the 10, only Frankie is statistically good enough for further testing. After that might be training another set of 10 dogs, figuring out if males or females are better, etc...

Regardless of breed, breeding frankie with any other cancer-sniffing dogs might give you some puppies(even/especially if they're mutts), that are better disposed to the activity.

Or they could figure out what Frankie is sniffing for and design a more straightforward chemical test for it. Something along the lines of 'X is this high over average, Y this low, and Z is present'.

Woof Woof Rooar Woof

[Registered Coward v2]

What Lassie? Dad has thyroid cancer? I better go call an oncologist.

Re:Woof Woof Rooar Woof

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of mod points, but... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ooooh that's hysterical.

other similar research

[Anonymous Coward]

When the researchers were asked about rumors that the dog can deduce which computer users are running systemd by sniffing their urine, they replied, "that is only speculation as of this time."

Large scale testing?

[myowntrueself]

So you'd take samples from sewage outlet pipes, get the dogs to sniff them. Keep following upstream from positive samples until you have street addresses. Invite anyone at that address to get tested.

If this could work in the early stages of cancer it could save a fortune in lives as well as money.

old news - done with melanoma in 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Applied Animal Behaviour Science xxx (2004) xxx–xxx
Evidence for canine olfactory detection of melanoma
Duane Pickel a, Glenda P. Manucy b, Dianne B. Walker c, Sandra B. Hall d, James C. Walker c,
a VONPICKEL K-9 Inc., 1386 Chaires Cross Road, Tallahassee, FL 32317-9724, USA
b Morninglo Goldens, 2401 Clara Kee Blvd., Tallahassee, FL 32303, USA
c Sensory Research Institute, B-340 NHMFL, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2741, USA d Department of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4330, USA
Accepted 27 April 2004
===
so, dogs might not be sniffing each others balls but rather looking for cancer?

dogs might be cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of some precise, high tech chemicals and sensors, a dog might just need a kilo of factory farmed meat a day, and a pat on the head. For most americans, dogs are cheaper than blood tests.

Scary

[penguinoid]

... cancers piss themselves in terror!

New dog service dog vest

[XB-70]

Service vests:

Police dog

Therapy dog

K9 corps

Guide dog

Search and Rescue dog

Hunting dog

Companion dog

Assistance dogs, and, now....

Piss Sniffer

lmbo

[Anonymous Coward]

dog is all "hey don't drink that piss it has cancer"

Who cares...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I care if my urine has cancer? I'm throwing it into the toilet anyway. I guess it might matter to Bear Grills, but come on, can't we use dogs for the things God intended, like testing cosmetics and cigarettes?

Go figure...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The can smell cancer but still want to catch the laser dot on the floor.

My Dog has No Nose - You Insensitive Clods

[germansausage]

My dog has no nose.

How does he smell?

Terrible!

Cover Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Wonderful Leader,

I'm interested in your Urine Sniffer position. I've smelled out of polished water bowels and provided my services for free in many restrooms. For the humans too embarrassed to provide a sample, I've found a few friendly snarls and growls lets them ease up. I'm an excellent communicator and help out in my community. I've smelled cancer on neighbors during my daily runs (I stay in shape) and chased them down the street telling them their life was in danger. From their screams, I know they all got the message. I bring all of this experience to you and I will continue to hone my skills when not on duty.

For hobbies, I have taken up smelling different drugs. Soon I will have mastered the scents of every major drug. I practice daily. As a demonstration, I've included three random urine samples and three powders in the attached containers. I've marked the cancerous one with an X and the illegal drugs with an X. If you test them, I'm sure you will discover my advanced detection rate.

I'll leave a sent trail by your office in a week if I haven't heard back from you by then.

Regards,

Rex, The Hound

Dog 2.0...

[tchdab1]

.... cures it.

Less invasive?

[meeotch]

Um... not for the dog.

Re:Less invasive?

[Neil Boekend]

Dogs are quite clear in that regard. You can't force a dog to do this through violence. You need to seduce the dog with treats and stuff like that. The dog must want to do the work.

New Viral Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

We had the crouch grab for testicular cancer. Are we going to have #SniffMyPiss now for thyroid cancer? Will give some new fodder for those Calvin peeing stickers, too.

Re:New Viral Trend

[Anonymous Coward]

crotch grab not crouch grab. Damn sleep deprivation.

acquired repulsion

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, despite this superpower, they choose roll around in the foulest smelling dead shit they can find.

Without conditioning that it is bad, we might also like it. After all, children like to play with poo and are trained by their parents not to do so.

Missing important info

[aepervius]

The specificity of the test is not shown, at least the false positive is not. ~85% chance of true positive is interresting and warrant further research. But I see conspicuously absent the false positive rate. See 88% true positive does not matter if you get 20% false positive. If you test 200 peoples , 100 with thyroid cancer 100 without, 12 you will not detect the cancer, 88 will be detected and 20 will be false detected as having cancer. And that's a good case where you already have a good idea this could be thyroid cancer with a high probability. As a screening test it would be terrible.

So the question is what is the false negative rate compared to the existing test.

Re:Missing important info

[Anonymous Coward]

Medical News Today provided that information. The specificity was about 89.5%.

Even then, the information is useless without the base rate. Only 1.1% of the population will ever develop thyroid cancer. So if we tested random samples, a positive result only means there's about an 8.3% chance the disease is present:

          (Sensitivity * Base Rate) / ((Sensitivity * Base Rate) + ((1 - Specificity) * (1 - Base Rate)))

Positive results from "accurate" tests mean surprisingly little if the base rate is low.

Different perception

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there smells we cannot appreciate in the same vein that there are sounds we cannot hear?

I once read, although I can't remember where it was anymore, that it's more a a difference of perception than a difference of smell. So, the idea is more like they smell what we smell, but they perceive them all as smells, rather than as good or bad, foul or lovely smells. A parallel could, perhaps, be established by comparing it to the way we see. We don't see good or bad colors. We just see.

This must somehow be true for dogs (although I don't know to what degree). Imagine a dog that was repulsed by the same odors we are (feces, vomit, etc.). Now imagine its life, given that it smells orders of magnitude better than we do. It would constantly be perturbed by nearby smells.

If they developed this or we lost it, I don't know, but it definitely would be worth studying.

Why not real scent hounds?

[fygment]

a) Why not a bloodhound, basset, etc.
b) why only one dog? Even in tech you would use more than one test eg. an ensemble of classifiers

Chemical analysis?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if the dogs can smell something in the pee that must mean there are some chemical markers that give off the odor that the dog recognizes. Why waste time asking a dog to sniff for things instead of determining a chemical detection test?

Important info

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly more detail at https://www.endocrine.org/news-room/current-press-releases/scent-trained-dog-detects-thyroid-cancer-in-human-urine-samples

The figures (I think) work out as 13 true positives, 2 false positives, 19 true negatives and 2 false negatives. Not bad.

In a sample of 34 tests, however, there's really no justification for reporting accuracy to 1 decimal place and implying a measurement resolution of one part in a thousand. ("In our experiments, 33.3% of the mice made a full recovery and 33.3% of the mice got worse. The third mouse escaped.")

This finding comes from a secret research facility

[Applehu Akbar]

Otherwise known as a black lab.

Where are the pigs?

[Anonymous Coward]

They keep mentioning how dogs can do this.
I guess it's convenient to scare people who have dogs into going to the doctor. But pigs and other animals have a much higher capability for smell. And actual scientific equipment can detect the molecules even better.

urinalysis used in eastern medicine

[peter303]

The one I heard most is Tibetan medicine - inspection and smell or samples. Their partitioning of disease is different too, so its not exactly what western medicine it looking for. I suspect that for some aspects of urinalysis the human nose is as sensitive as an analytical machine and can be trained. A dogs nose is even mroe sensitive.

Worst job ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder how that dog managed to land that gig. Sniffing peoples pee all day?

Ruh Roh

[Anonymous Coward]

Rit's rancer!

I think people may have missed the point.

[jimbob6]

I think that people may have missed the point here. Frankie isn't the focus of this article. That's just click bait. The point here is that urinalysis may be a better way of detecting cancer than biopsy. Not that dogs love cancer.

This isn't news.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least credit the fact that the Brits did it first in 2004.

http://medicaldetectiondogs.org.uk/cancer_info.html