Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Dog Sniffs Out Cancer In Human Urine 97

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dog Sniffs Out Cancer In Human Urine

Comments Filter:
  • the 11.8%? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 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%? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @07:46PM (#49221087) Homepage
      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%? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @08:36PM (#49221405)

        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.

        • 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
      • 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...

        • 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.

    • 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

      • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

        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.

        • 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.

    • by NoKaOi ( 1415755 )

      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.

  • by 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.

  • by 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?

    • 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

      • by arth1 ( 260657 )

        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.

        • 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.
      • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

        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 j

        • 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

    • 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... [wikipedia.org]
      This is one of the best visualizations of it: http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/201... [mirror.co.uk]

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

  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @07:00PM (#49220669) Journal
    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward

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

    • Why do you hate dogs?
      • by forty-2 ( 145915 )

        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.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      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.

      • "Well Mr. Smith, the good news is that your wife doesn't have cancer. The bad news is that the diagnostic equipment ate her."
    • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

      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.

  • by Irate Engineer ( 2814313 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @07:20PM (#49220833)

    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).

    • by 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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BennyB2k4 ( 799512 )
      That theory doesn't hold if all 10 dogs are missing the same 20% due to a common failure mode.
    • by jblues ( 1703158 )
      You mean like a Beau-woof cluster?
    • 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.

    • 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

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        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 servic

        • 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

      • 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.
        • 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.

  • by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @07:27PM (#49220909)
    What Lassie? Dad has thyroid cancer? I better go call an oncologist.
  • 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.

  • ... cancers piss themselves in terror!

  • Service vests:

    Police dog

    Therapy dog

    K9 corps

    Guide dog

    Search and Rescue dog

    Hunting dog

    Companion dog

    Assistance dogs, and, now....

    Piss Sniffer

  • The can smell cancer but still want to catch the laser dot on the floor.
  • My dog has no nose.

    How does he smell?

    Terrible!

  • by 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 kno

  • .... cures it.

  • Um... not for the dog.

    • 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.

  • by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @03:41AM (#49223029)
    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.
  • 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

  • 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.
  • 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.

Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of a subject -- the actual enemy is the unknown. -- Thomas Mann

Working...