CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 182Human-Animal Interaction StudiesAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence, comorbidity, and breed differences in canine anxiety in 13,700 Finnish pet dogs

Open access
Salonen, Milla, Sulkama, Sini, Mikkola, Salla, Puurunen, Jenni, Hakanen, Emma, Tiira, Katriina, Araujo, César, Lohi, Hannes·2020·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-59837-zPMC PMC7058607
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Behaviour problems and anxieties in dogs decrease their quality of life and may lead to relinquishment or euthanasia. Considering the large number of pet dogs and the commonness of these problematic behaviours, a better understanding of the epidemiology and related molecular and environmental factors is needed. We have here studied the prevalence, comorbidity, and breed specificity of seven canine anxiety-like traits: noise sensitivity, fearfulness, fear of surfaces and heights, inattention/impulsivity, compulsion, separation related behaviour and aggression with an online behaviour questionnaire answered by dog owners. Our results show that noise sensitivity is the most common anxiety-related trait with a prevalence of 32% in 13,700 Finnish pet dogs. Due to the high prevalence of noise sensitivity and fear, they were the most common comorbidities. However, when comparing the relative risk, the largest risk ratios were seen between hyperactivity/inattention, separation related behaviour and compulsion, and between fear and aggression. Furthermore, dog breeds showed large differences in prevalence of all anxiety-related traits, suggesting a strong genetic contribution. As a result, selective breeding focusing on behaviour may reduce the prevalence of canine anxieties. Anxious animals may suffer from chronic stress and thus, modified breeding policies could improve the welfare of our companion dogs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-020-59837-z

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Prevalence of the traits (a) and subtraits (b) in a sample of 13715 dogs in 264 breeds.
Figure 1 Prevalence of the traits (a) and subtraits (b) in a sample of 13715 dogs in 264 breeds.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Comorbidity heat maps. Proportion of dogs with pairs of diagnoses using the disorder listed in the column header as the denominator (a) and relative risk (b). (a) Adapted from Goldstein-Piekarski et al.72.
Figure 2 Comorbidity heat maps. Proportion of dogs with pairs of diagnoses using the disorder listed in the column header as the denominator (a) and relative risk (b). (a) Adapted from Goldstein-Piekarski et al.72.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Prevalences of fear of thunder (a), aggression toward family members (b), hyperactivity/impulsivity (c) and fear of strangers (d) for both sexes and six age groups.
Figure 3 Prevalences of fear of thunder (a), aggression toward family members (b), hyperactivity/impulsivity (c) and fear of strangers (d) for both sexes and six age groups.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Breed differences in fear of thunder (a), fear of strangers (b), fear of surfaces and heights (c), hyperactivity/impulsivity (d), inattention (e), aggression toward strangers (f), tail chasing (g), fly snapping/light chasing (h) and vocalization/salivation/panting alone (i). For other breed-wise differences, see Supplementary Fig. S2.
Figure 4 Breed differences in fear of thunder (a), fear of strangers (b), fear of surfaces and heights (c), hyperactivity/impulsivity (d), inattention (e), aggression toward strangers (f), tail chasing (g), fly snapping/light chasing (h) and vocalization/salivation/panting alone (i). For other breed-wise differences, see Supplementary Fig. S2.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Radar chart representation of the behaviour of dog breeds: Border Collie (a), Miniature Schnauzer (b), Lagotto Romagnolo (c) and Staffordshire Bull Terrier (d). Colors represent the larger traits. Clockwise from top: blue – noise sensitivity, lime green – fear, violet – fear of surfaces and heights, orange – aggression, pine green – hyperactivity/inattention, purple – separation related behaviour, yellow – compulsive behaviour. Radar charts for other breeds in Supplementary Fig. S3. The minimum in all traits is the breed-wise minimum prevalence and the maximum in all traits is the breed-wise maximum prevalence. For the minimum and maximum prevalences, see Supplementary Table S7.
Figure 5 Radar chart representation of the behaviour of dog breeds: Border Collie (a), Miniature Schnauzer (b), Lagotto Romagnolo (c) and Staffordshire Bull Terrier (d). Colors represent the larger traits. Clockwise from top: blue – noise sensitivity, lime green – fear, violet – fear of surfaces and heights, orange – aggression, pine green – hyperactivity/inattention, purple – separation related behaviour, yellow – compulsive behaviour. Radar charts for other breeds in Supplementary Fig. S3. The minimum in all traits is the breed-wise minimum prevalence and the maximum in all traits is the breed-wise maximum prevalence. For the minimum and maximum prevalences, see Supplementary Table S7.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 65 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–182 of 182

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Salonen, M., Sulkama, S., Mikkola, S., Puurunen, J., Hakanen, E., Tiira, K., Araujo, C., & Lohi, H.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Lohi, Hannes
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-03-05
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
2962-2962
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-020-59837-z
PMC
PMC7058607
OpenAlex
W3009145783
Cited by
182
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 10
FWCI
12.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Academy of Finland (308887)
  • Jane ja Aatos Erkon Säätiö
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Keywords
canine anxiety, noise sensitivity, fearfulness, compulsive behavior, canine aggression, breed differences, comorbidities, prevalence, selective breeding, dog welfare
MeSH terms
Aggression, Animals, Anxiety Disorders, Behavior, Animal, Human-Animal Bond, Compulsive Behavior, Dog Diseases, Dogs, Fear, Female, Finland, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Species Specificity, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Pets

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review