COVID Sniffer Dogs: Technical and Ethical Concerns

Scent Detection Threshold of Trained Dogs to Eucalyptus Hydrolat

Dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) sense of smell is based on a unique anatomy and physiology that enables them to find and differentiate low concentrations of odor molecules. This ability is exploited when dogs are trained as search, rescue, or medical detection dogs. We performed a three-part study to explore the scent detection threshold of 15 dogs to an in-house-made Eucalyptus hydrolat. Here, decreasing concentrations of the hydrolat were tested using a three-alternative forced-choice method until the first incorrect response, which defined the limit of scent detection for each tested dog. Quantitative proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy was used to identify and measure the contents of ten commercial Eucalyptus hydrolats, which are used in a dog scent training sport called "nose work". In this study, the dogs' limit of detection initially ranged from 1:104 to 1:1023 but narrowed down to 1:1017-1:1021 after a training period. The results show that, with training, dogs learn to discriminate decreasing concentrations of a target scent, and that dogs can discriminate Eucalyptus hydrolat at very low concentrations. We also detected different concentrations of eucalyptol and lower alcohols in the hydrolat products and highlight the importance of using an identical source of a scent in training a dog for participation in canine scent sport competitions and in olfactory research.

Can scent-detection dogs detect the stress associated with trauma cue exposure in people with trauma histories? A proof-of-concept study

Introduction

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an impairing mental health condition with high prevalence among military and general populations alike. PTSD service dogs are a complementary and alternative intervention needing scientific validation. We investigated whether dogs can detect putative stress-related volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the breath of people with trauma histories (54% with PTSD) exposed to personalized trauma cues.

Methods

Breath samples were collected from 26 humans over 40 experimental sessions during a calm (control breath sample) and stressed state induced by trauma cue exposure (target breath sample). Two scent detection canines were presented with the samples in a two alternative forced choice (2AFC) discrimination and yes/no detection task. The 2AFC task assessed the dogs' ability to discriminate between the two states within the breath samples of one individual. The detection task determined their ability to generalize the target odour across different individuals and different stressful events of one individual. Signal Detection Theory was applied to assess dogs' sensitivity, specificity, precision, and response bias.

Results

The dogs performed at ∼90% accuracy across all sample sets in the discrimination experiment, and at 74% and 81% accuracy, respectively, in the detection experiment. Further analysis of dog olfactory performance in relation to human donor self-reported emotional responses to trauma cue exposure suggested the dogs may have been detecting distinct endocrine stress markers. One dog's performance correlated with the human donors' self-reported fear responses and the other dog's performance correlated with the human donors' self-reported shame responses. Based on these correlations between dog performance and donor self-report measures, we speculate that the VOCs each dog was detecting likely originated from the sympathetico-adreno-medullary axis (SAM; adrenaline, noradrenaline) in the case of the first dog and the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA; glucocorticoids) in the case of the second dog.

Conclusion

Our proof-of-concept study is the first to demonstrate that some dogs can detect putative VOCs emitted by people with trauma histories when experiencing distress theoretically associated with the intrusion and arousal/reactivity symptoms of PTSD. Results have potential to improve the effectiveness and training protocol of PTSD service dogs with a focus on enhancing their alert function.

COVID-19 scent dog research highlights and synthesis during the pandemic of December 2019-April 2023

CONTEXT

This review was undertaken to provide information concerning the advancement of research in the area of COVID-19 screening and testing during the worldwide pandemic from December 2019 through April 2023. In this review, we have examined the safety, effectiveness, and practicality of utilizing trained scent dogs in clinical and public situations for COVID-19 screening. Specifically, results of 29 trained scent dog screening peer-reviewed studies were compared with results of real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and rapid antigen (RAG) COVID-19 testing methods.

OBJECTIVES

The review aims to systematically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of utilizing trained scent dogs in COVID-19 screening.

METHODS

At the time of submission of our earlier review paper in August 2021, we found only four peer-reviewed COVID-19 scent dog papers: three clinical research studies and one preprint perspective paper. In March and April 2023, the first author conducted new literature searches of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library websites. Again, the keyword phrases utilized for the searches included "COVID detection dogs," "COVID scent dogs," and "COVID sniffer dogs." The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Checklist was followed to ensure that our review adhered to evidence-based guidelines for reporting. Utilizing the results of the reviewed papers, we compiled statistics to intercompare and summarize basic information concerning the scent dogs and their training, the populations of the study participants, the types of sampling methods, the comparative tests utilized, and the effectiveness of the scent dog screening.

RESULTS

A total of 8,043 references were identified through our literature search. After removal of duplicates, there were 7,843 references that were screened. Of these, 100 were considered for full-text eligibility, 43 were included for qualitative synthesis, and 29 were utilized for quantitative analysis. The most relevant peer-reviewed COVID-19 scent dog references were identified and categorized. Utilizing all of the scent dog results provided for this review, we found that 92.3 % of the studies reached sensitivities exceeding 80 and 32.0 % of the studies exceeding specificities of 97 %. However, 84.0 % of the studies reported specificities above 90 %. Highlights demonstrating the effectiveness of the scent dogs include: (1) samples of breath, saliva, trachea-bronchial secretions and urine as well as face masks and articles of clothing can be utilized; (2) trained COVID-19 scent dogs can detect presymptomatic and asymptomatic patients; (3) scent dogs can detect new SARS-CoV-2 variants and Long COVID-19; and (4) scent dogs can differentiate SARS-CoV-2 infections from infections with other novel respiratory viruses.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of the trained scent dog method is comparable to or in some cases superior to the real-time RT-PCR test and the RAG test. Trained scent dogs can be effectively utilized to provide quick (seconds to minutes), nonintrusive, and accurate results in public settings and thus reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus or other viruses. Finally, scent dog research as described in this paper can serve to increase the medical community's and public's knowledge and acceptance of medical scent dogs as major contributors to global efforts to fight diseases.

Sniffer dogs performance is stable over time in detecting COVID-19 positive samples and agrees with the rapid antigen test in the field

Rapid antigen diagnostic (RAD) tests have been developed for the identification of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, they require nasopharyngeal or nasal swab, which is invasive, uncomfortable, and aerosolising. The use of saliva test was also proposed but has not yet been validated. Trained dogs may efficiently smell the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in biological samples of infected people, but further validation is needed both in laboratory and in field. The present study aimed to (1) assess and validate the stability over a specific time period of COVID-19 detection in humans' armpit sweat by trained dogs thanks to a double-blind laboratory test-retest design, and (2) assess this ability when sniffing people directly. Dogs were not trained to discriminate against other infections. For all dogs (n. 3), the laboratory test on 360 samples yielded 93% sensitivity and 99% specificity, an 88% agreement with the Rt-PCR, and a moderate to strong test-retest correlation. When sniffing people directly (n. 97), dogs' (n. 5) overall sensitivity (89%) and specificity (95%) were significantly above chance level. An almost perfect agreement with RAD results was found (kappa 0.83, SE 0.05, p = 0.001). Therefore, sniffer dogs met appropriate criteria (e.g., repeatability) and WHO's target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics and produced very promising results in laboratory and field settings, respectively. These findings support the idea that biodetection dogs could help reduce the spread of the virus in high-risk environments, including airports, schools, and public transport.

Use of trained scent dogs for detection of COVID-19 and evidence of cost-saving

Background

One of the lessons learned from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the importance of early, flexible, and rapidly deployable disease detection methods. Currently, diagnosis of COVID-19 requires the collection of oro/nasopharyngal swabs, nasal turbinate, anterior nares and saliva but as the pandemic continues, disease detection methods that can identify infected individuals earlier and more quickly will be crucial for slowing the spread of the virus. Previous studies have indicated that dogs can be trained to identify volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced during respiratory infections. We sought to determine whether this approach could be applied for detection of COVID-19 in Rwanda and measured its cost-saving.

Methods

Over a period of 5 months, four dogs were trained to detect VOCs in sweat samples collected from human subjects confirmed positive or negative for COVID-19 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Dogs were trained using a detection dog training system (DDTS) and in vivo diagnosis. Samples were collected from 5,253 participants using a cotton pad swiped in the underarm to collect sweat samples. Statistical analysis was conducted using R statistical software.

Findings

From August to September 2021 during the Delta wave, the sensitivity of the dogs' COVID-19 detection ranged from 75.0 to 89.9% for the lowest- and highest-performing dogs, respectively. Specificity ranged from 96.1 to 98.4%, respectively. In the second phase coinciding with the Omicron wave (January-March 2022), the sensitivity decreased substantially from 36.6 to 41.5%, while specificity remained above 95% for all four dogs. The sensitivity and specificity by any positive sample detected by at least one dog was 83.9, 95% CI: 75.8-90.2 and 94.9%; 95% CI: 93.9-95.8, respectively. The use of scent detection dogs was also found to be cost-saving compared to antigen rapid diagnostic tests, based on a marginal cost of approximately $14,000 USD for testing of the 5,253 samples which makes 2.67 USD per sample. Testing turnaround time was also faster with the scent detection dogs, at 3 h compared to 11 h with routine diagnostic testing.

Conclusion

The findings from this study indicate that trained dogs can accurately identify respiratory secretion samples from asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients timely and cost-effectively. Our findings recommend further uptake of this approach for COVID-19 detection.

Dogs Detecting COVID-19 From Sweat and Saliva of Positive People: A Field Experience in Mexico

Context

Molecular tests are useful in detecting COVID-19, but they are expensive in developing countries. COVID-19-sniffing dogs are an alternative due to their reported sensitivity (>80%) and specificity (>90%). However, most of the published evidence is experimental, and there is a need to determine the performance of the dogs in field conditions. Hence, we aimed to test the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19-sniffing dogs in the field.

Methods

We trained four dogs with sweat and three dogs with saliva of COVID-19-positive patients, respectively, for 4.5 months. The samples were obtained from a health center in Hermosillo, Sonora, with the restriction to spend 5 min per patient. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Two sweat-sniffing dogs reached 76 and 80% sensitivity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the random value of 50%, and 75 and 88% specificity, with the 95% CI not overlapping the 50% value. The 95% CI of the sensitivity and specificity of the other two sweat dogs overlapped the 50% value. Two saliva-sniffing dogs had 70 and 78% sensitivity, and the 95% CI of their sensitivity and specificity did not overlap the 50% value. The 95% CI of the third dog's sensitivity and specificity overlapped the 50% value.

Conclusion

Four of the six dogs were able to detect positive samples of patients with COVID-19, with sensitivity and specificity values significantly different from random in the field. We considered the performance of the dogs promising because it is reasonable to expect that with gauze exposed for a longer time to sweat and saliva of people with COVID-19, their detection capacity would improve. The target is to reach the sensitivity range requested by the World Health Organization for the performance of an antigen test (≥80% sensitivity, ≥97% specificity). If so, dogs could become important allies for the control of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in developing countries.