Olfactory and cochleovestibular dysfunction after head injury in the workplace: an updated series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of olfactory dysfunction in workers following head injury in the work place, to define its relationship to the site, severity of injury and direction of force. The demographics of head injured workers were also assessed to determine whether those with olfactory loss were more likely to have sustained a cochleovestibular injury. DESIGN: Retrospective case analysis. SETTING: Tertiary referral university hospital in Toronto, Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3438 consecutive patients referred from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) in the province of Ontario who sustained a work-related head injury were assessed between 1987 and 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Olfactory and cochleovestibular dysfunction assessed by history, clinical examination and subjective and objective tests. RESULTS: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) was identified in 413 of 3438 patients (12.0%) of which 321 were diagnosed with anosmia and 92 with hyposmia. In our series, injuries from a fall were the commonest cause for OD and a frontal or mid-face impact was more likely to result in OD than other regions (P = 0.0002). A loss of consciousness (LOC) of any duration correlated with OD. In those with olfactory dysfunction, an associated skull fracture occurred in 37.1% of patients and a CSF leak in 4.1%, which was significantly higher compared with those without OD(<0.0001). Patients with OD had a higher incidence of cochlear and vestibular loss (19.9% and 20.6%, respectively) compared with those without OD (14.3% and 17.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Post-traumatic olfactory dysfunction is more likely to occur in patients who experienced a moderate to severe head injury, LOC and more likely to result from a frontal or mid-face blow to the skull. Cochleovestibular dysfunction is likely to occur concurrently with olfactory dysfunction.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".