Subjects with Congenital Anosmia Have Larger Peripheral but Similar Central Trigeminal Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most odorants not only stimulate olfactory receptor neurons but also activate the intranasal trigeminal nerve. The simultaneous activation of the olfactory and the trigeminal system leads to an interaction in the brain. Therefore, assessment of the trigeminal impact of odorants may be difficult in subjects with a normal sense of smell. To obtain a deeper insight into both, mechanisms of changes in trigeminal sensitivity in anosmic patients and interactions between the olfactory/trigeminal systems in healthy subjects, 21 patients with isolated congenital anosmia (ICA) were investigated in this series of explorative, hypothesis-generating experiments and compared with 35 healthy controls. Trigeminal sensitivity was measured by psychophysical (lateralization task, intensity ratings) and electrophysiological (trigeminal event-related potential, negative mucosal potential) means. ICA patients were found to have higher peripheral activation than controls. On central levels, however, similar responsiveness to trigeminal stimuli was found in ICA patients when compared with healthy subjects. The results of the study are discussed by proposing a model of mixed sensory adaptation/compensation in the interactions between olfactory and the trigeminal 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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".