MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372333040 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33638-6

Genetic dissection of behavioral traits related to successful training of drug detection dogs

2023· article· en· W4372333040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuki Matsumoto, Akitsugu Konno, Genki Ishihara, Miho Inoue‐Murayama

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBiologyBreedDrug responseAnxietyDrugMedicineGeneticsPsychiatryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drug detection dogs play integral roles in society. However, the interplay between their behaviors and genetic characteristics underlying their performance remains uninvestigated. Herein, more than 120,000 genetic variants were evaluated in 326 German Shepherd or Labrador Retriever dogs to profile the genetic traits associated with various behavioral traits related to the successful training of drug detection dogs. Behavioral breed differences were observed in 'friendliness to humans' and 'tolerance to dogs.' A genome-wide association study within both breeds identified 11 regions potentially associated with drug detection dog characteristics as well as 'interest in the target' and 'friendliness to humans,' which are related to drug detection abilities. Among them, 63 protein-coding genes, including Atat1 and Pfn2 known to be associated with anxiety-related or exploration behavior in mice, respectively, were located surrounding the identified candidate polymorphisms. This study highlights genetic characteristics associated with behavioral traits that are important for the successful training of drug detection dogs. Thus, these findings may facilitate improved breeding and training of these dogs.

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)0.000
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207