ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Explosive detection canines in the field: a multi-site black box validation study.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insights from the field: Evaluating handler feedback on training practices and standards on canine detection testing.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Canine detection for biodiversity protection: a multispecies approach to promote conservation and prevent wildlife trafficking.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2009, the National Research Council called upon the forensic science community to standardize the best practices and guidelines in the collection and analysis of evidence with the goal of ensuring quality and consistency within the field. In response to this need, the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) was established to coordinate the development of best practices and standards in the forensic sciences. The OSAC Dogs and Sensors subcommittee was part of this initiative focusing on standardizing training and certification protocols for canine detection teams. Though efforts to create and promote such standards are ongoing worldwide, the developed assessments for both training and operational contexts have yet to be empirically validated. As a first step toward addressing this gap, a proof-of-concept black box study was carried out to assess the OSAC explosive canine detection standard based on performance of explosive detection canines. The evaluations were held in three separate geographic locations with a total of 56 canine/handler teams, took place over 2 days, and included searches recommended within the ANSI/ASB Standard 092 as well as scenarios designed to more closely mimic what the teams might experience in practice. Overall, the results from the individual canine/handler team responses revealed that no team would have passed the OSAC certification; however, the results indicated comparable performance on both assessment types (standard assessments and operational scenarios). Additionally, canine/handler performance varied significantly across all three trials in both correct alert, false alert rates, and detection success rate across the mandatory six different explosive types presented. These findings suggest that the performance on Standard 092 certification assessments may predict operational effectiveness. The results also suggest that the variation in performance is attributable to the diversity of training aid material routinely available to the participating teams.
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.