Olfactory dysfunction in fragile X tremor ataxia syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We investigated olfactory defects in fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS), a finding reported on in other neurodegenerative disorders with clinical features that overlap those of FXTAS. METHODS: We measured olfactory identification capacity in 41 FMR1 premutation carriers and 42 controls using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Carriers received neurologic evaluations using motor rating scales for tremor, ataxia, and parkinsonism. Cognitive function was measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test. RESULTS: Frequency of olfactory defects was higher in carriers, compared to controls (61% versus 29%; P = 0.003). There was no statistically significant group difference in severity of olfaction defects, after accounting for differences in age, and in rates of head injury and smoking. However, both the frequency (odds ratio = 3.9; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-19.1) and severity (28.6 versus 33.4; P = 0.01) of these defects were greater in cognitively impaired, compared to cognitively intact, carriers. There was no correlation between UPSIT scores and the above-mentioned motor rating scales. CONCLUSIONS: FMR1 premutation carriers are susceptible to olfactory identification defects. The severity of these defects is comparable to that reported in hereditary ataxias, but less than that in PD and Alzheimer's disease. This concurrence across neurodegenerative disorders suggests a shared system vulnerability that correlates with, but is not limited to, cognitive impairment, because it is also found in cognitively intact carriers. These results need to be corroborated in a larger prospective study of FMR1 premutation carriers that extends beyond olfactory identification to include measures of smell thresholds.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".