ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Dogs' ability to detect an inflammatory immune response in cattle via olfaction.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Canine olfactory detection of florfenicol residues in goat milk: a pilot study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Canine olfaction is a potential means for detection of respiratory disease in beef cattle. In a prior study, two dogs were trained to discriminate between nasal swabs from healthy cattle and cattle that developed Bovine Respiratory Disease. Dogs had some ability to identify samples from BRD-affected cattle, but results were ambiguous. The purpose of this study was to evaluate more dogs using better-controlled training and testing procedures. Methods: Nasal and saliva swabs were collected from 96 cattle before and after administering a vaccine to induce an inflammatory immune response. Samples were stored at -80°C for up to 11 months before use, and samples from animals with an elevated body temperature at baseline were omitted. An automated olfactometer apparatus was constructed to improve blinding procedures and reduce opportunities for odor contamination. Four dogs were trained to distinguish between swabs from healthy and sickness-model cattle, including the two dogs from the previous study ("Runnels" and "Cheaps") and two inexperienced dogs ("Molokai" and "Amy"). During a seven-month training period, dogs were exposed to samples from 28 animals. Dogs were tested on 59 sets of unfamiliar samples. Results: Performance varied among dogs (χ Discussion: The results of this study indicate that canine olfaction may be an effective means of detecting illness in beef cattle. However, individual dogs' aptitude for this detection task varies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.