Traumatic brain injury and olfactory deficits: The tale of two smell tests!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Olfactory functions are not systematically evaluated following traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study aimed at comparing two smell tests that are used in a clinical setting. RESEARCH DESIGN: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and the Alberta Smell Test were compared in terms of assessment time, cost and diagnosis. Parameters associated with olfactory loss such as injury severity, type of cerebral lesion and depressive data were considered. Forty-nine TBI patients admitted to an outpatient rehabilitation programme took part in this experiment. RESULTS: The scores of the two smell tests were significantly correlated. Both tests indicated that patients with frontal lesion performed significantly worse than patients with other types of lesion. Mood and injury severity were not associated with olfactory impairment when age was taken into account. Between 40-44% of the patients showing olfactory impairments were not aware of their deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Since a significant proportion of the patients showing olfactory impairments were not aware of their deficit, it is recommended than clinicians systematically evaluate olfactory functions using the Alberta Smell test. To refine their diagnosis, the UPSIT can also be used.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".