Interactions between Olfaction and the Trigeminal System: What Can Be Learned from Olfactory Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The olfactory and the trigeminal systems have a close relationship. Most odorants also stimulate the trigeminal nerve. Further, subjects with no sense of smell exhibit a decreased trigeminal sensitivity with unclear underlying mechanisms. Previous studies indicated that single stages of trigeminal processing may differently be affected by olfactory loss. A better knowledge of adaptive and compensatory changes in the trigeminal system of subjects with acquired anosmia (AA) will improve the understanding of interactive processes between the 2 sensory systems. Thus, we aimed to assess trigeminal function on different levels of processing in subjects with AA. Subjects with AA showed larger electrophysiological responses to irritants obtained from the mucosa than healthy controls. On central levels, however, they exhibited smaller event-related potentials and psychophysical measures to irritants. Over 9 months, they exhibited an increase in trigeminal sensitivity. Subjects with recovering olfactory function showed an even more increased peripheral responsiveness to irritants. These data suggest dynamic mechanisms of mixed sensory adaptation/compensation in the interaction between the olfactory and trigeminal systems, where trigeminal activation is increased on mucosal levels in subjects with AA and amplified on central levels in subjects with a functioning olfactory system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".