ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring canine's olfactive threshold in artificial urine for medical detection.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective trial for breast cancer diagnosis by canine odorology.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- Canine "Sniffin' Sticks" enable behavioural olfactometry to complement neurological examination in dogs.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Olfactory Science and Technology in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: From Invertebrate Models to Artificial Intelligence.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Investigation of the Impact of Extraneous Odours on the Detection Capability of Explosive Detection Dogs Under a Controlled Test Environment.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canine olfaction is increasingly studied as a tool for detecting cancer and other diseases. Previous pilot studies have demonstrated that dogs can effectively distinguish positive samples from negative samples in humans with breast cancer, achieving sensitivity rates as high as 100%. However, questions remain about dogs' ability to detect low concentrations of volatile organic compounds in complex medium. While dogs' detection thresholds for isoamyl acetate using a mineral oil substrate have been studied, there are no current studies on their detection limits using more complex substrates like urine, relevant in clinical settings. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the olfactory threshold of dogs using artificial urine with various concentrations of isoamyl acetate. Two dogs were trained to detect isoamyl acetate, initially using water as the substrate during the training phase, and subsequently using artificial urine during the testing phase, under single and double-blinded conditions. The dogs were trained to indicate the presence of isoamyl acetate solutions by sitting in front of the positive sample and ignoring controls. Training and testing occurred in a controlled environment, maintaining consistency with the same two handlers, a standardized methodology, and positive reinforcement with toy rewards. Based on double-blind performances, results showed a minimum detection threshold of 6.7 x 10-9 Molar (M) for Nougaro (Springer Spaniel) one dog and 2.1 x 10-7M for Prince (Labrador Retriever). The sample age did not affect performance. However, the position of the cone did, with higher failure rates for the first cone compared to the other three. These findings underscore the potential of trained dogs to detect volatile organic compounds at very low concentrations in complex substrates, supporting their use in clinical diagnostics.
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.