Friday, January 21, 2022

Doodles are HEALTHIER Than Purebred Parents



You know who has REALLY good data
on canine health? 

Pet insurance companies. 

The have big samples, operationalized by breed, age, type of health issue, cost. 

And guess what? 

Mutts and mixed breeds are mostly HEALTHIER than their pure-bred parents. 

Example: Doodles Nationwide Pet Insurance writes:

As the first part of a larger analysis of the cancer claims of 1.61 million Nationwide®-insured dogs over a six-year period, the leading U.S. pet health insurer reviewed both the popularity of these “designer dogs” as well as their risk for cancer claims relative to the purebreds that make up these crossbreds.
  • Doodle popularity is up, and Doodle parent breed popularity is down. Poodle crosses increased as a relative share of Nationwide’s pet health insurance policies, while the relative share of the parent breeds fell. 

  • Doodle owners are considerably less likely to have submitted a claim for cancer diagnosis or treatment. Relative risk for cancer claims is dramatically lower in Labradoodles and Goldendoodles in comparison with their contributing breeds — Standard Poodles, Golden Retrievers, and Labrador Retrievers.

The Nationwide team
found that market economics and public information both seem to be working.

For instance, while Goldendoodles, Labradoodles, and various other Poodle crosses were up from 160 to 340 percent, the demand for purebred Standard Poodles, Labrador Retrievers, and Golden Retrievers declined from 4 top 32 percent.

The market phenomenon seen with pure-breeds and doodles is replicated generally. While the relative percentage of all non-purebreds grew from 2013 to 2021 (by 131 percent for cross-breeds and 45 percent for mixed breeds), purebred dogs insured by Nationwide declined 18.6 percent.

Another bit of good news is that Doodle breeders and pet buyers seems to get it -- closed registries and closed gene pools are THE problem.

Breeders and pet owners seem satisfied with the offspring of two different parent breeds (often referred to as an “F1” generation) in contrast to breeding Labradoodles with other Labradoodles. This potentially avoids reduction of genetic diversity by ensuring that the breeding pool can be kept wider. 

What about cancer
-- the focus of the study?
  • Goldendoodles are 75.0% less likely to have a claim submitted for cancer, compared with Golden Retrievers and Standard Poodles combined.

  • Labradoodles are 62.0% less likely to have a claim submitted for cancer, compared with Labrador Retrievers and Standard Poodles combined. 
  • Put another way, the combined relative risk for parent breeds of Goldendoodles having submitted a cancer claim is four times that of their crossbred offspring, and for the parent breeds of Labradoodles it is 2.6 times. 
  • When the focus is broadened to look at purebred versus non-purebred dogs, a similar overall trend emerges. When compared with crossbred and mixed-breed dogs, purebreds as a group are almost twice as likely (188.5%) to have submitted a claim for cancer.


Look for more good work
from Nationwide Pet Insurance. 

With these studies, Nationwide draws on decades of policy and claims data and vast veterinary expertise, providing insights to drive positive change in pet health care

  Related Posts:

11 comments:

Porter and Porter Fields said...

We have Berniedoodles in our neighborhood now...maybe 3 or 4. They go like racehorses. Happy and healthy.

Gina said...

Thanks, Patrick!

Kelley said...

This study failed to calculate age of the dogs in the study or anything else
It's extremely faulty

PBurns said...

A thought: Could the study may be better than your knowledge of data and statistics?

Remember, the folks in the insurance industry rise and fall on data. Their profit is -- literally -- three digits to the right of the decimal point. They actually know statistics -- something most dog folks do not.

Your point about age is misplaced. The law of averages (look it up) and the law of large numbers (look it up) means that in a population of dogs -- where almost no age is going to be greater than 15 -- renders a breakout of cancer data by age pretty meaningless. For the record, the total sample size here is 1.61 million dogs.

If you look at human cancer data by race, you will find marked differences, but no break out by age. Why? The same law of large numbers. See >> https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/disparities.html

Also, size is a very big determinative of health, cancer, and longevity, which makes the differences between Labs, Retrievers, and their Standard Poodle crosses even more illuminating, as the dogs are all the same size.

Sharon M said...

I totally agree with you. Read more detail here. https://assets.ctfassets.net/440y9b545yd9/2xKSYWnUkxhb0tJGDLNdoI/fe9b401da2d73c6fef7c2a4bd4b8a49e/Nationwide_Oodles_of_Doodles_and_Cancer_Cross_Breed_White_Paper_2022.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ebxaWt93iS0DTIoTfRHtSk8-lePQJUidumTbeCF5xAUnAXPEOr94Zxqg

Sharon M said...

Note that in 2013, 74.9% were purebred, 22.3% were mixed breeds, and 2.9% were crossbred. Then in 2021, 61% were purebred, 32.4% mixed, 6.6% crossbred. Age is most definitely relevant. I would suspect that more of the purebreds in 2021 were also insured in 2013 - compared to the crossbreds. A dog who is 8 years old or older, is more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than a dog under 5 years old. However, I know of several Bernese Mountain Dog/poodle mixes who were diagnosed with Histiocytic Sarcoma before 5 years of age - in fact, some before 2 years old.

PBurns said...

Not sure where these numbers are coming from, since they are not in the Nationwide report AND the report is pretty clear that the study cover months and years October 2015 to September 2021.

Also, individual dogs are anectdote, which is the opposite of statistics. As a general rule, if I suggest folks look at something like THE LAW OF AVERAGES or THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS, it pays to do so.

Sharon M said...

Did you check out the white paper I posted above? An excerpt below:

"Methodology summary
For the analysis of popularity, populations of purebreds, crossbreds and mixed-breeds were isolated
and then compared with the entire population of dogs insured by Nationwide, both in 2013 and in
2021. The resulting figures reflect relative percentage as a snapshot in 2013 and again in 2021.
The cancer claims analysis for this white paper and others that will follow was more complex. In brief,
the in-house veterinary analytics team looked at all Nationwide-insured dogs, identifying claims
activity among 1,612,884 canines over a six-year period (October 2015 to September 2021). The team
then identified claims diagnostic codes relating to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Any policy with
a claim submission for a cancer diagnostic code was used to calculate the relative risk for having
submitted a cancer claim."

There are many misleading statements in the white paper, including that "doodles" seem to be all F1's, compared to Labradoodles specifically breeding for "Purebred Labradoodles." This is not true - many Poodle/BMD mixes are being bred themselves, either to a another Poodle/BMD mix, or to a Poodle, or to a BMD. The study is also weird in that they apparently reference different datasets - 2013-2021 and also Oct 2015-Sept 2021.

Just another anti-purebred piece - and not particularly well-done (based on submitted claims, not diagnoses - for example).

Also, there have been many studies done on cancer in Bernese Mountain Dogs, with graphs showing numbers of dogs diagnosed with cancer, by age. Age is definitely a relevant factor when it comes to frequency of cancer.

PBurns said...

Sharon do you have a degree in statistics? How about English?

I have both.

The paper says "For the analysis of popularity...."

You saw that right? Do you know what the clause means??

Bernese Mountain dogs are cancer bombs on four legs, and whether they are dead at age 2, four, or eight does not have much impact on whether they get cancer, are dead of cancer, or the cost of treating the same.

For the record the median age at death for Bernese Mountain Dogs last I looked it up was 8 years. More than 45% of deaths are from cancer.

Gina said...

First, I'm the writer on this project, and Patrick's observations are correct.

Second, the paper CLEARLY STATES this is the first cut of the data.

Third, age of onset is analyzed for the next paper (this is a series). That will be out next month.

Finally, if you think a Fortune 100 company has commissioned a hit piece on purebreds you need to have your head examined. They in fact do not care what kind of dog you have, and we are alone among American pet health insurers making public analyses of our policy and claims data.

We're doing it because my boss thinks pet-owners and veterinary teams need information to make informed choices re: care.

The analysis was developed by veterinarians and conducted with known statistical and biostatistical standards, and reviewed by a actuaries and other data nerds, of which I assure you an insurance company has many.

And FWIW, members of the veterinary analytics team have both purebred and non-purebred dogs. I myself have had, bred and shown flatcoated retrievers for decades, and also have Shelties. My last champion flatcoat was the grandson of a Crufts winner. He died of hemangiosarcoma at the age of 8. The two who died before him left me at 7. I still have one flatcoat, but I'm done with breed. Geneticists have told us how to help the cancer issue, but it requires leaving "purity" behind, so everyone just keeps burying young dogs. Personally, I'm done with that.

And no, my grief had nothing to do with this study. I don't get to choose what we do. I just write it up.

I don't particularly care about Doodles one way or the other. I just want people to have healthy pets, and you don't even have to look at our data to know that's not as common in purebreds as in dogs with a more diverse genetic profile. There's LOTS of peer-reviewed papers that says the same, albeit not with a cohort of 1.61 million dogs.

Gina said...

Also:

"based on submitted claims, not diagnoses - for example'

This is the weirdest take of all.

These are submitted claims for the DIAGNOSIS and TREATMENT of cancer.

We don't diagnose; we pay up after veterinarians diagnose. But the diagnosis is in our records nonetheless. If you imagine these to be fraudulent claims, I got news for you: No industry investigates and pursues fraud more energetically than the insurance industry. Insurance fraud is a felony, and veterinarians lose their licensed with felony convictions. It's not worth it to them, believe me.