Lateralized and overall olfactory identification ability in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research involves an examination of the olfactory ability of individuals with Frontotemporal Dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and geriatric individuals with cognitive complaints owing to Major Depressive Disorder or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The purpose of this study was to determine if olfactory differences were useful in differentiating between demented and non-demented individuals. Due to the pathway of the olfactory tract, it can be expected that there would be equal olfactory deficits in those diagnosed with Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and that these deficits would be worse than those found in geriatric individuals with Major Depressive Disorder or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Five hypotheses were investigated. The first utilized an ANCOVA and found that the olfaction of the demented group was worse than that of the non-demented, psychiatric group. The second utilized a series of Discriminant Function Analyses and F-tests and determined that olfaction best classified demented and non-demented individuals. The third implemented a Mixed Model ANOVA to assess for lateralized smell deficits within the demented group and between the demented and non-demented groups and found no main effects of lateralization or interaction effects. The fourth hypothesis investigated the relationship between smell and commonly used neuropsychological tests in a Frontotemporal Dementia sample, and found that there was no difference between the relationship of tests measuring the frontal and temporal lobes to those measuring other cerebral areas. The fifth hypothesis replicated Hypothesis 4 in an Alzheimer's disease sample and found that there was a significant difference between the relationship of tests measuring the frontal and temporal lobes to those measuring other cerebral areas. Primarily, this study demonstrated that dementia patients present with significantly more olfactory deficits than a psychiatric sample with subjective cognitive complaints. Additionally, olfaction correctly distinguished the Dementia Group from the Psychiatric Group with 81.6% accuracy, 90.2% sensitivity and 67.6% specificity. Alone, these classification statistics are quite impressive, appearing equivalent, or possibly superior to the classification statistics of commonly used neuropsychological tests of memory, executive functioning, and visuospatial ability. This study concluded that adding an olfactory measure to an assessment battery provides clinically relevant data, and enhances the diagnostic accuracy of the battery. However, though this study found the Alberta Smell Test was a valuable addition to a test battery, the absence of lateralized findings demonstrated the unirhinal format, by which the Alberta Smell Test is administered, does not provide diagnostically relevant information above and beyond the information a clinician will gain from birhinal assessment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".