4 ms·
Odd how the baseline mentioned in the article is better then human average. Why wouldn't the baseline be dogs, or existing non-breath tests?
by doggo_ 8y ago
Odd how the baseline mentioned in the article is better then human average. Why wouldn't the baseline be dogs, or existing non-breath tests?
- stevenwoo 8y agoFrom what I can tell, dogs worked well in the laboratory, but it did not work well in the field. In the lab they usually had 1/5 or so positive samples, but in the field, it was a much lower positive rate depending upon cancer and the dog handler would not be able to give positive reinforcement immediately in the field, also different dogs have different success rates. https://www.livescience.com/61234-how-dogs-smell-cancer.html https://www.livescience.com/61234-how-dogs-smell-cancer.html
- asafira 8y agovery cool! I wonder if they could sprinkle in some fake examples for the dogs so that they could give positive reinforcement more often.
- andrewortman 8y agoMarketing
- kondro 8y agoI saw some studies recently stating that humans' sense of smell is actually as good as dogs.
- semi-extrinsic 8y agoThe baseline is not humans smelling breath, it's humans looking at a graph.