↓ Skip to main content

IOP Publishing

Canine scent detection for the diagnosis of lung cancer in a screening-like situation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Breath Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 632)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
17 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Canine scent detection for the diagnosis of lung cancer in a screening-like situation
Published in
Journal of Breath Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1088/1752-7155/10/4/046003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaus Hackner, Peter Errhalt, Michael Rolf Mueller, Manulea Speiser, Beatrice A Marzluf, Andrea Schulheim, Peter Schenk, Johannes Bilek, Theodor Doll

Abstract

The prognosis in lung cancer depends largely on early stage detection, and thus new screening methods are attracting increasing attention. Canine scent detection has shown promising results in lung cancer detection, but there has only been one previous study that reproduces a screening-like situation. Here breath samples were collected from 122 patients at risk for lung cancer (smokers and ex-smokers); 29 of the subjects had confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer but had not yet been treated and 93 subjects had no signs or symptoms of lung cancer at the time of inclusion. The breath samples were presented to a trained sniffer dog squadron in a double-blind manner. A rigid scientific protocol was used with respect to earlier canine scent detection studies, with one difference: instead of offering one in five positive samples to the dogs, we offered a random number of positive samples (zero to five). The final positive and negative predictive values of 30.9% and 84.0%, respectively, were rather low compared to other studies. The results differed from those of previous studies, indicating that canine scent detection might not be as powerful as is looked for in real screening situations. One main reason for the rather poor performance in our setting might be the higher stress from the lack of positive responses for dogs and handlers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Chemistry 6 8%
Engineering 5 7%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 10 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 149. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2021.
All research outputs
#279,882
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Breath Research
#9
of 632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,360
of 331,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Breath Research
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.