MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311049527 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.1006315

Use of trained scent dogs for detection of COVID-19 and evidence of cost-saving

2022· article· en· W4311049527 on OpenAlexaff
Léon Mutesa, Misbah Gashegu, Eric Remera, Hans Ebbers, Esther Schalke, Patrick Tuyisenge, Reuben Sindayiheba, Clement Igiraneza, Jeanine Uwimana, Diane Mbabazi, Epimaque Kayonga, Michel Twagiramungu, Denyse Mugwaneza, Leandre Ishema, Yvan Butera, Clarisse Musanabaganwa, Edson Rwagasore, Friederike Twele, Sebastian Meller, Albert Tuyishime, Robert Rutayisire, Marilyn Milumbu Murindahabi, Lindsay A. Wilson, Noella Bigirimana, Holger A. Volk, Vedaste Ndahindwa, Benoit Kayijuka, Edward J. Mills, Claude Mambo Muvunyi, Sabin Nsanzimana

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactUniversity of British Columbia
FundersRwanda Biomedical Centre
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SalivaMedicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PandemicInternal medicineVirologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: One of the lessons learned from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the importance of early, flexible, and rapidly deployable disease detection methods. Currently, diagnosis of COVID-19 requires the collection of oro/nasopharyngal swabs, nasal turbinate, anterior nares and saliva but as the pandemic continues, disease detection methods that can identify infected individuals earlier and more quickly will be crucial for slowing the spread of the virus. Previous studies have indicated that dogs can be trained to identify volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced during respiratory infections. We sought to determine whether this approach could be applied for detection of COVID-19 in Rwanda and measured its cost-saving. Methods: diagnosis. Samples were collected from 5,253 participants using a cotton pad swiped in the underarm to collect sweat samples. Statistical analysis was conducted using R statistical software. Findings: From August to September 2021 during the Delta wave, the sensitivity of the dogs' COVID-19 detection ranged from 75.0 to 89.9% for the lowest- and highest-performing dogs, respectively. Specificity ranged from 96.1 to 98.4%, respectively. In the second phase coinciding with the Omicron wave (January-March 2022), the sensitivity decreased substantially from 36.6 to 41.5%, while specificity remained above 95% for all four dogs. The sensitivity and specificity by any positive sample detected by at least one dog was 83.9, 95% CI: 75.8-90.2 and 94.9%; 95% CI: 93.9-95.8, respectively. The use of scent detection dogs was also found to be cost-saving compared to antigen rapid diagnostic tests, based on a marginal cost of approximately $14,000 USD for testing of the 5,253 samples which makes 2.67 USD per sample. Testing turnaround time was also faster with the scent detection dogs, at 3 h compared to 11 h with routine diagnostic testing. Conclusion: The findings from this study indicate that trained dogs can accurately identify respiratory secretion samples from asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients timely and cost-effectively. Our findings recommend further uptake of this approach for COVID-19 detection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207