# AnimalTrace protocol: Public canine DNA test page audit

This protocol was amended after page-availability screening and before formal
coding on 2026-09-30.

## Question

For a small, predefined set of canine disease tests, how often do public lab
test pages state the exact variant tested, inheritance pattern, relevant breeds,
and limits of a negative result?

This is an audit of **published test information**. It cannot measure a lab's
analytic accuracy, clinical validity, report quality, or customer service.

## Pilot sample

- Labs: UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory, Laboklin (UK), and Orivet.
- Conditions: progressive rod-cone degeneration (PRA-prcd), degenerative
  myelopathy (common SOD1 variant), exercise-induced collapse (DNM1), and von
  Willebrand disease type 1.
- Unit of analysis: one lab–condition pair, giving 12 prespecified pairs. Record
  whether a standalone public test page exists. Select pages by their named
  condition and, for DM and EIC, their stated gene or subtype. Do not substitute
  a differently named condition. Where a page does not identify its molecular
  target, mark cross-lab variant equivalence as unverified rather than assuming it.
- Use each lab's current public site on one recorded collection date. Record the
  exact URL and access date for every pair. If a page is inaccessible, record that
  separately rather than guessing its content from a search snippet.

The pilot establishes whether these conditions yield comparable pages across
all three labs. If not, report the missing pairs and decide on any enlarged
sample **before** examining or summarizing the other pages.

### Amendment after availability screening

The original third lab was Paw Print Genetics. On 2026-09-30 its public home
page announced a merger with Orivet, and the former test-page URLs checked
during screening were unavailable or led to that home page. Cached search
snippets are not usable as current page evidence. Before formal coding, replace
Paw Print with Orivet, which has accessible pages for all four named conditions.
The four conditions, four fields, and 12-pair sample size are unchanged. This
is an availability-driven change, so the sample is purposive and the lab
selection must not be presented as representative.

## Coding rules

For each accessible page, record yes/no/not clear for:

1. **Exact variant:** a nucleotide or protein change with a position, genomic
   coordinate, or rsID is given. A gene name, disease shorthand, exon number,
   or unpositioned base letters alone do not count.
2. **Inheritance:** the mode of inheritance is explicitly stated. Record the
   wording and flag internal contradictions; this field does not assess whether
   the stated mode is correct.
3. **Breed relevance:** at least one named breed linked to this test or variant,
   or an explicit all-breeds statement, appears on the page. A generic statement
   about the condition or an unexpanded "view associated breeds" prompt alone
   does not count. This field does not assess clinical appropriateness by breed.
4. **Negative-result limit:** "yes" requires an explicit statement that a
   normal/clear result does not rule out another variant, form, or condition.
   "Not clear" means the page gives a normal-result interpretation and separately
   discusses another form or variant without directly linking the two. "No"
   means neither kind of limit appears. This is a wording check, not a judgment
   that a lab overstates a test's power.

Also record the test name verbatim, the page URL, any linked technical details,
and a short paraphrased evidence note or page location for each code. Keep raw notes in
a separate table so another reader can reproduce each classification. Where
two reviewers are available, code pages independently and resolve differences
against the written rules. If only one person codes, state that limitation.

## Analysis and publication

Report counts as `n/N` for accessible pages and for all prespecified pairs,
with missing or inaccessible pages shown separately. Show the full table and
examples of wording; do not rank labs or use statistical significance tests on
this small purposive sample. Describe exactly how pages were found, any
changes to the protocol, and the collection date. Ask a veterinary genetics
expert to check the interpretation before publication. If that review cannot be
obtained, publish only the descriptive coding and explicitly report that the
note had one coder and no independent veterinary genetics review; do not draw
clinical conclusions.

Publish as an **AnimalTrace research note**, labelled as an observational audit
of public web pages. Do not describe it as peer reviewed or as evidence about
the quality of the underlying genetic tests.