The Evaluation of Olfactory Function in Patients With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare olfactory threshold, smell identification, intensity and pleasantness ratings between patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls, and (2) to evaluate correlations between ratings of olfactory probes and illness characteristics. Thirty one patients with schizophrenia and 31 control subjects were assessed with the olfactory n-butanol threshold test, the Iran smell identification test (Ir-SIT), and the suprathreshold amyl acetate odor intensity and odor pleasantness rating test. All olfactory tasks were performed unirhinally. Patients with schizophrenia showed disrupted olfaction in all four measures. Longer duration of schizophrenia was associated with a larger impairment of olfactory threshold or microsmic range on the Ir-SIT (P=0.04, P=0.05, respectively). In patients with schizophrenia, female subjects' ratings of pleasantness followed the same trend as control subjects, whereas male patients' ratings showed an opposite trend. Patients exhibiting high positive score on the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) performed better on the olfactory threshold test (r=0.37, P=0.04). The higher odor pleasantness ratings of patients were associated with presence of positive symptoms. The results suggest that both male and female patients with schizophrenia had difficulties on the olfactory threshold and smell identification tests, but appraisal of odor pleasantness was more disrupted in male patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".