MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073372245 · doi:10.1076/clin.17.2.226.16501

Unirhinal Norms for the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test

2003· article· en· W2073372245 on OpenAlexafffund
Kimberley P. Good, Jeffrey S. Martzke, Marie Abi Daoud, Lili C. Kopala

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie UniversityNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Test (biology)Computer sciencePsychologyBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult normative data are presented for unirhinal administration of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Two-hundred and seventy healthy adults, aged 15-64, were administered half of the UPSIT (20 items) to each nostril. The main findings were: (1) unirhinal and birhinal performance are not equivalent necessitating the use of unirhinal norms, rather than prorated birhinal norms, (2) unirhinal performance does not differ according to nostril of presentation, (3) unirhinal performance does not differ according to sex, (4) within the age ranges studied, age accounted for only a minor proportion of the variability, and (5) being a current smoker and having lower levels of formal education contributed to reduced unirhinal UPSIT scores. Correction factors are suggested for the education and smoking variables. Unirhinal evaluation may assist in further delineating the structural integrity of specific ipsilateral brain regions and potentially aid in differential diagnosis for a number of disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.341
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.035 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Clinical NeuropsychologistSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207