Olfactory function in psychotic disorders: Insights from neuroimaging studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olfactory deficits on measures of identification, familiarity, and memory are consistently noted in patients with psychotic disorders relative to age-matched controls. Olfactory intensity ratings, however, appear to remain intact while the data on hedonics and detection threshold are inconsistent. Despite the behavioral abnormalities noted, no specific regional brain hypoactivity has been identified in psychosis patients, for any of the olfactory domains. However, an intriguing finding emerged from this review in that the amygdala and pirifom cortices were not noted to be abnormal in hedonic processing (nor was the amygdala identified abnormal in any study) in psychotic disorders. This finding is in contrast to the literature in healthy individuals, in that this brain region is strongly implicated in olfactory processing (particularly for unpleasant odorants). Secondary olfactory cortex (orbitofrontal cortices, thalamus, and insula) was abnormally activated in the studies examined, particularly for hedonic processing. Further research, using consistent methodology, is required for better understanding the neurobiology of olfactory deficits. The authors suggest taking age and sex differences into consideration and further contrasting olfactory subgroups (impaired vs intact) to better our understanding of the heterogeneity of psychotic disorders.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".