Lateralized and overall olfactory identification ability in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research involves an examination of the olfactory ability of individuals with Frontotemporal Dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and geriatric individuals with cognitive complaints owing to Major Depressive Disorder or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The purpose of this study was to determine if olfactory differences were useful in differentiating between demented and non-demented individuals. Due to the pathway of the olfactory tract, it can be expected that there would be equal olfactory deficits in those diagnosed with Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and that these deficits would be worse than those found in geriatric individuals with Major Depressive Disorder or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Five hypotheses were investigated. The first utilized an ANCOVA and found that the olfaction of the demented group was worse than that of the non-demented, psychiatric group. The second utilized a series of Discriminant Function Analyses and F-tests and determined that olfaction best classified demented and non-demented individuals. The third implemented a Mixed Model ANOVA to assess for lateralized smell deficits within the demented group and between the demented and non-demented groups and found no main effects of lateralization or interaction effects. The fourth hypothesis investigated the relationship between smell and commonly used neuropsychological tests in a Frontotemporal Dementia sample, and found that there was no difference between the relationship of tests measuring the frontal and temporal lobes to those measuring other cerebral areas. The fifth hypothesis replicated Hypothesis 4 in an Alzheimer's disease sample and found that there was a significant difference between the relationship of tests measuring the frontal and temporal lobes to those measuring other cerebral areas. Primarily, this study demonstrated that dementia patients present with significantly more olfactory deficits than a psychiatric sample with subjective cognitive complaints. Additionally, olfaction correctly distinguished the Dementia Group from the Psychiatric Group with 81.6% accuracy, 90.2% sensitivity and 67.6% specificity. Alone, these classification statistics are quite impressive, appearing equivalent, or possibly superior to the classification statistics of commonly used neuropsychological tests of memory, executive functioning, and visuospatial ability. This study concluded that adding an olfactory measure to an assessment battery provides clinically relevant data, and enhances the diagnostic accuracy of the battery. However, though this study found the Alberta Smell Test was a valuable addition to a test battery, the absence of lateralized findings demonstrated the unirhinal format, by which the Alberta Smell Test is administered, does not provide diagnostically relevant information above and beyond the information a clinician will gain from birhinal assessment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».