Talk:Canine cancer detection

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Canine cancer detection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202204030/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1859073,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1859073,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Does WikiProject Medicine own this article?
My edit was just reverted with this edit summary: "Undid revision 750638631 by Ottawahitech (talk)The Huffington Post is not a reliable source for medical information)". Is  this policy at Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * I think the general idea in WP:BRD is that when someone reverts your edit, you start a discussion about the edit to figure out how to proceed. You did start a discussion, which is great, but you also reinserted your edit, which is not great and looks like editwarring. I'll leave it to someone else to explain why your synthesis of what that article says is problematic. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * if you look up at the top of this Talk page, you will see that this article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. This is entirely appropriate for an article about cancer detection.  That project does not "own" the article, but this does mean that the article will be held to the high standards of reliable information that are vital to medical articles. The guidelines for reliable sources in medical articles is at WP:MEDRS.  The particular comments under discussion were in the "Research" section of the article, which is used for details of relevant research. The detailed findings had already been described above, so adding the HuffPo article does not add anything.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain why my edit was reverted. However, it is still not clear to me why my edit in this article is not acceptable while the one I recently made in Thalidomide, which is also a medical article, is. Thanks in advance,  Ottawahitech (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me


 * You added that material back without any consensus here, in contravention of the WP:BRD process - please have more respect for Wikipedia's processes and for your fellow editors in future. What may or may not have happened on another article is not relevant here, though I cannot see how the changes are similar anyway.  The material you added is not research, and I cannot imagine how it belongs in the Reference section. Huffington Post is hardly a reliable source for medical information: see WP:MEDRS. Specifically, the evidence in the Research section should be assessed against WP:MEDASSESS. As it says in WP:MEDPOP, "the popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles", and Huffington Post is towards to bottom of that pile. But it's not up to me; let's see what other editors have to say, including .  Once we have a consensus, that's how we will proceed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well it appears that an IP is also against adding a tidbit about  Britain’s National Health Service approving a clinical study  to this article, although he did not post his/her rationale here even though I requested it. Also it appears that  who was quite vocal here initially and has been following me to other discussions and even posted on my wp:talkpage, is not responding(?) So since there are only the two of us here  how are we going to achieve consensus? BTW do you also want to be pinged Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me


 * I was thinking about this, and I might have a solution that would satisfy everybody. How would you feel about creating a new section called something like "Media coverage" and putting this material there, rather than under Research?  My thinking is not to create a complete list every media report, but to show that the topic is one that was widely reported to the public.  Putting it into a separate section would help to clarify that it is not making medical claims, so the MED criteria could be loosened (at least, that is my thinking).  We could even put a comment at the top of the section saying so.  Do you think that would work?--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After you incorrectly categorized someone as Swiss and then denied adding the category, I was curious if you showed the same disregard in the rest of your editing, so, yes, I have taken a look at some of your other edits. I hope that's ok. Here's what you added to this article: "In 2015 the Huffington Post reported that studies have suggested that dogs may be able to detect lung cancer, melanoma, breast cancer and bladder cancer, and that dogs can be trained to detect cancer in 93% of cases". You've combined two sentences from the source which makes it seem like the "success" rate applies to the listed cancers. The source says "initial tests have shown trained dogs to have a detection accuracy rate of more than 93 percent". You omitted the "intial tests" part, which is important because medical articles especially should be clear about what is current consensus and what is speculation. You've also changed the phrasing from "trained dogs" to "dogs can be trained" which implies that any dog can have a 93% success rate rather than finding this high success rate by looking at the results of the most successful specially trained dogs. It's somewhat of a moot point because if you follow the link in the Huffington Post article you will find out that the 93% success rate applies specifically to prostate cancer detection. This is why the Huffington Post (and similar) are not considered good sources for medical articles. In any case, you should have been prepared to discuss your edit once it was reverted. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about some wp:AGF? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * I have no doubt that you have good intentions, but that doesn't mean the results of your actions should be ignored. For an editor who has been here since 2007, you don't seem to have learned very much about working on a collaborative project. Perhaps it is time to slow down and think about your edits a little more before you make them? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt, but would you mind if we got back to the topic of how to improve the article ... This is about a medical topic, and therefore deserves high standards of references, but it is also something that received a lot of coverage in the public media so it also has a social aspect. This is why I suggested creating a separate section to discuss the scope of press coverage, including pointing out where it has been reported inaccurately. Do you think this is an acceptable approach? If not, what are your suggestions? --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with this approach. I believe information about the study approved by  the National Health Service should be included in this article Ottawahitech (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * I'm not sure that the announcement of an upcoming study is helpful, but I'm not going to argue about it. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

What did we. Agree to?
I just noticed that three of us spent a lot of energy discussing a reverted edit. Even though it seems. We have reached consensus no one added the content we agreed to back to the article. 2002:ADB4:886F:0:1553:214E:34FF:6448 (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me


 * - okay, I had a go at it. I added a new sub-section "Media coverage" to put this in.  The press coverage has set up a broad public expectation that this is generally accepted, especially in the Alt Med field, so I think it's worth including (without giving it undue weight). Comments and improvement welcome.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Ottawahitech, I just read your added material and disagree with several things:
 * Regarding the Nature World News citation and your summary: The full quote is "They take the results as a learning experience and still believe that one day, (trained) dogs can still detect lung cancer effectively by setting effective protocols. They are also keen to knowing what could have affected the results." That all but admits a flawed test protocol, and thus untrustworthy results. Your summary "the researchers... believe that one day, dogs can still detect lung cancer" waters this down significantly and in fact almost reverses it. Also, them even saying "...and still believe that one day..." shows they were biased in the first place and remain so despite negative results.Also, I have doubts tat Nature World News is a RS.
 * Regarding using HuffPo as a RS of medical news, I will repeat that this is contrary to WP policy. This should be removed.
 * Quoting an actress to provide medical info is beyond insane. Putting this in a separate Media Coverage section just seems like a way to sneak in nonsense. You may find 100 celebs stating this to be true (as you can for any other unproven nonsense). Should we quote them all here and in all the other psudoscience/alt-med wiki pages to give credence to truth? RobP (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Only the HuffPo material came from - I added the rest in an attempt to give a representative view of coverage of the topic in the broader media.  I am very disappointed if it came across as supporting the idea.  Perhaps I did not make it clear; my intent was to separate the legitimate medical coverage from the less reliable material that is foremost in the public awareness.  Obviously the actress is not a medical expert, but she is a very popular public figure so when she speaks people listen, right or wrong, and her interview was widely reported.  I also probably did a poor job of summarizing the Nature World News article - I intended to highlight that the researchers remained committed to their entrenched position in spite of their own evidence to the contrary, which is the opposite of a scientific approach.  So, given your concerns ... what would you propose instead? --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would ask you to take a look at the box of the top of this page which indicates "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine" There is a link there to the proper format for such an article, and nowhere is their could I find the type of thing that would allow anecdotes from celebrities or articles published in places like HuffPo to be used. In fact, take a look at the description of HuffPo:


 * "The Huffington Post is arguably one of the heaviest trafficked news, opinion, and information sources on the Internet. Its many editors and 9,000 contributors produce content that runs the gamut and is generally decent, with one exception: medicine. HuffPo aggressively promotes worthless alternative medicine such as homeopathy, detoxification, and the thoroughly debunked vaccine-autism link. In 2009, Salon.com published a lengthy critique of HuffPo's unscientific (and often exactly wrong) health advice, subtitled Why bogus treatments and crackpot medical theories dominate "The Internet Newspaper". HuffPo's tradition is neither new nor just a once-in-a-while thing. Science journalists have repeatedly taken HuffPo to task for this, and repeatedly been rebuffed or not allowed to submit fact-based rebuttals. HuffPo's anti-science stance on health and medicine appears to be deliberately systematic and is unquestionably pervasive." (From https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283) RobP (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I'm not clear what you are suggesting we should do.  I agree that HuffPo is not a reliable source, and I would not propose it for medical information. The WikiProject Medicine box you refer to suggests that "biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources" (my emphasis), which is why I originally proposed separating the section about media coverage to try and make it clear that this is not intended to be reliable biomedical information.  The WikiProject Medicine style guidelines include "sections on history or on popular culture", while the section on Medical Tests includes "Society and culture", and that is the sort of thing I was aiming for.  Obviously I have failed to do that clearly enough, and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.  What do you suggest the article should contain? --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I guess I am objecting to the use of unreliable sources at all in an article which is basically one discussing a medical claim. By the logic of allowing a Media Coverage section here to put claims against the mainstream science, one could place such a section with nonsense claims in ANY medical article (or scientific article on other subjects for that matter). I don't think that is appropriate.  Thoughts? RobP (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Renaming this article
The current title is very ambiguous. "Canine cancer detection" could mean either "Detection of cancer by canines" or "detection of cancer in canines". I suggest "Olfactory detection of cancer by canines" or "Canine detection of cancer in humans", but I'd like to hear some other suggestions. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That never bothered me. BUT: Why is it "canine" in the first place? That could mean teeth. Seriously, it's all about dogs... not the larger set of related animals including wolves! RobP (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Information on “canine cancer detection” seems to no longer be accurate
Before I begin, I’d ask that you forgive me if this comes across wrong. This is the first time I have contributed any feedback to wikipedia regarding content, and I am unfamiliar with the editing protocol and culture.

Getting to it, this wiki article currently suggests that evidence supporting the use of canine smell for cancer-detection has been mostly anecdotal, and that the few formal studies that have looked into the matter produced mixed results. After watching a Wired newscast, in which MIT researcher Andreas Merchin insists that dogs can detect a wide variety of cancers with 90% accuracy, I did a search on pubmed ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ ) for ‘dog smell cancer’. The search results suggest a good deal of research has been done recently that substantiates the abilities of dogs in the area of olfactory cancer detection. I have opened this “Talk” thread to suggest or request that wiki editors update the article to take into account this recent research, and to reflect shifting attitudes in the scientific community if the editors agree with me that a shift has indeed occurred. Jhillert (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

To supplement my assertions above, I provide the following pubmed citations, each with a relevant excerpt taken from the abstract. I stopped at four because there appears to be too many studies now for me to get them all without a large time investment.

All of the following URLs link to pubmed abstracts:

“Olfactory system of highly trained dogs detects prostate cancer in urine samples.” CITATION: J Urol. 2015 Apr;193(4):1382-7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.099. Epub 2014 Sep 28. ABSTRACT: “...For dog 1 sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 99.0-100.0) and specificity was 98.7% (95% CI 97.3-99.5). For dog 2 sensitivity was 98.6% (95% CI 96.8-99.6) and specificity was 97.6% (95% CI 95.9-98.7). When considering only men older than 45 years in the control group, dog 1 achieved 100% sensitivity and 98% specificity (95% CI 96-99.2), and dog 2 achieved 98.6% sensitivity (95% CI 96.8-99.6) and 96.4% specificity (95% CI 93.9-98.1).” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25264338

“A New Transcutaneous Method for Breast Cancer Detection with Dogs.” CITATION: Oncology. 2019;96(2):110-113. doi: 10.1159/000492895. Epub 2018 Oct 2. ABSTRACT: “...During the test, the dogs recognized 90.3% of skin secretion breast cancer samples.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30278460

“Cross detection for odor of metabolic waste between breast and colorectal cancer using canine olfaction.” CITATION: PLoS One. 2018 Feb 13;13(2):e0192629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192629. eCollection 2018. ABSTRACT: “...For two cancers, both dogs regardless of whether training or non-training showed that accuracy was over 90%, and sensitivity and specificity were over 0.9, respectively.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438432

“The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from patients' breath using canine scent detection: a proof-of-concept study.” CITATION: J Breath Res. 2017 Sep 13;11(4):046002. doi: 10.1088/1752-7163/aa7b8e. ABSTRACT: “...The sensitivity for canine detection was 78% (95% CI: 62%-90%).” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28649095Jhillert (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Other claimed canine disease detection capabilities
I added a section to capture the use of dogs to smell another disease. I have more to add here and will do so shortly. I believe the article should eventually be "moved" to a new name such as Canine disease detection, and the current material regarding cancer could be one section, with another being COVID-19, and perhaps other sections. For example, I think there is something about dogs being claimed to detect when a seizure is imminent. RobP (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide comments on my MOVE proposal. Thanks. RobP (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)