Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dog Sniffs Out Cancer In Human Urine

Posted by Soulskill on from the and-you-thought-your-job-was-bad dept.

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.

63 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. the 11.8%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:the 11.8%? by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:the 11.8%? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:the 11.8%? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:the 11.8%? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:the 11.8%? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:the 11.8%? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:the 11.8%? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:the 11.8%? by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:the 11.8%? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    10. Re:the 11.8%? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  2. You have the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:You have the choice by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:You have the choice by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:You have the choice by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:You have the choice by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:You have the choice by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:You have the choice by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:You have the choice by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      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.

  3. What would the combined accuracy be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:What would the combined accuracy be? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:What would the combined accuracy be? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:What would the combined accuracy be? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:What would the combined accuracy be? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:What would the combined accuracy be? by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:What would the combined accuracy be? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      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...

  4. The Talisman came out when? by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:The Talisman came out when? by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:The Talisman came out when? by dissy · · Score: 1

      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!

    3. Re:The Talisman came out when? by quenda · · Score: 1

      The canine olfactory organ is thousands of orders of magnitude

      Something tells me you're an arts graduate :)

  5. what are we missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:what are we missing? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate dogs?

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    2. Re:what are we missing? by hey! · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:what are we missing? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:what are we missing? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    5. Re:what are we missing? by forty-2 · · Score: 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.

      --
      never drink kool-aid from a big vat
  6. Why not multiple dogs? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by BennyB2k4 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    3. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by jblues · · Score: 2

      You mean like a Beau-woof cluster?

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    4. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by taylorius · · Score: 1

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

    7. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      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).

    8. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    9. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:Why not multiple dogs? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      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'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  7. Woof Woof Rooar Woof by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  8. Large scale testing? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  9. Scary by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    ... cancers piss themselves in terror!

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  10. New dog service dog vest by XB-70 · · Score: 1
    Service vests:

    Police dog

    Therapy dog

    K9 corps

    Guide dog

    Search and Rescue dog

    Hunting dog

    Companion dog

    Assistance dogs, and, now....

    Piss Sniffer

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
  11. Go figure... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

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

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  12. Re:Not sure I want a dog sniffing my private parts by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Then again, it is cold up here in Canada.

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

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  13. My Dog has No Nose - You Insensitive Clods by germansausage · · Score: 1

    My dog has no nose.

    How does he smell?

    Terrible!

  14. Cover Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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

  15. Dog 2.0... by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    .... cures it.

  16. Less invasive? by meeotch · · Score: 1

    Um... not for the dog.

    1. Re:Less invasive? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  17. Missing important info by aepervius · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  18. Why not real scent hounds? by fygment · · Score: 1

    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

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  19. This finding comes from a secret research facility by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Otherwise known as a black lab.

  20. urinalysis used in eastern medicine by peter303 · · Score: 1

    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.

  21. I think people may have missed the point. by jimbob6 · · Score: 1

    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.