Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42905671›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

A case study comparing the detection ability of cadaver detection dogs and electronic nose technology to a clandestine grave.

Amber O Brown, Sandali Alahakone, Erin Lamb, Daniel Pasin, Darryl Hawker, Taoping Liu, Wentian Zhang, Shari L Forbes, Steven Su, Maiken Ueland

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Amber O BrownCentre for Forensic Sciences, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sandali AlahakoneCentre for Forensic Sciences, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Erin LambCentre for Forensic Sciences, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Daniel PasinHyperion Data, Griffith, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5037-7290
Darryl HawkerNSW Police Force Canine Unit, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.
Taoping LiuSchool of Information Mechanics and Sensing Engineering, Xidian University, Xi'an, China.
Wentian ZhangSchool of Mathematical and Physical Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Shari L ForbesDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Steven SuCollege of Medical Information and AI, Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5720-8852
Maiken UelandCentre for Forensic Sciences, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9155-3502

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cadaver detection dogs (CDDs) are one of the best tools to locate clandestinely buried human remains. However, large data gaps exist in what VOC classes and concentrations are targeted by CDDs for detection. This study compared the alert responses produced by CDDs used by the New South Wales Police Force to responses generated by an electronic nose (named the NOS.E) with metal oxide sensors to a clandestine burial. For confirmatory analysis, VOC samples of the clandestine burial were taken, and compounds were identified using GC × GC-TOFMS. While statistical work was limited due to sample sizes, inferences were made about VOC presence and concentration to NOS.E and detection dog ability. Both CDDs and NOS.E were able to detect targeted chemical classes (sulfur and nitrogen containing compounds, alcohols, alkanes and aldehydes) which was supported by GC × GC-TOFMS. Correlation analyses demonstrated non-significant, but observational patterns that CDDs true positive alerts were associated with higher NOS.E responses to sulfur and nitrogen containing compounds, alcohols and alkanes. Additionally, a "no alert" or "False Positive" alert was associated with lower NOS.E responses. This work supports that it is both the presence and abundance of VOC chemical classes that influence true positive alerts from CDDs to buried human remains.

Indexed as

BurialElectronic NoseVolatile Organic CompoundsAnimalsCadaverDogsGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryHumansVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID42905671
PMCPMC13686469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.