Olfaction in Athletes with Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly lead to olfactory dysfunction; it is, however, unclear whether and to what degree mild TBI such as concussions, which are common sports injuries, affect olfactory function. We therefore aimed to evaluate smell function in athletes who sustained one or more sport concussions in a cross-sectional design. METHODS: Twenty-two University-level football players with one or multiple concussions and 13 control athletes without a history of concussion participated. We measured olfactory function by using the Sniffin' Sticks test to assess subjects' ability to discriminate and identify odors as well as their detection thresholds. In addition, we assessed odor intensity and pleasantness. RESULTS: We used number of concussions and time since the last concussion as independent variables and measure of olfactory function as dependent variables. Although we did not observe any significant effect of the number of concussions, athletes with a longer delay from time of concussion scored significantly weaker than more recently concussed subjects on the odor identification test and on an aggregate olfactory score. Accordingly, we observed a significant negative linear correlation between the odor identification score and the time elapsed since the last concussion. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest a possible degenerative effect of concussions on olfactory function.
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".