CLINICAL STUDY OF OLFACTORY DYSFUNCTION IN PATIENTS WITH MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the differences in olfactory function between patients with mild cognitive impairment(MCI) and healthy elderly as well as the correlation of olfactory function and neuropsychology. Methods Neuropsychological test and Sniffin' Sticks Screening Test(SSST) such as Mini Mental State Examination(MMSE),Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA),and Functional Activities Questionnaire(FAQ) were applied to assess the olfactory function in 52 MCI patients and 40 healthy controls. Results The differences of MMSE,MoCA,FAQ,and SSST between MCI patients and healthy controls were significant(t=11.73-18.42,P0.001).SSST score in MCI was significantly correlated with neuropsychological score(r=0.705,0.559,-0.659;P0.001),but no significant correlation of above items was noted in the healthy controls(P0.05).Conclusion MCI is a risk factor of Alzheimer disease(AD).Olfactory screening test may be a sensitive indicator in the diagnosis of MCI.Early detection and early intervention can delay or prevent the occurrence and development of dementia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".