Olfactory performance segregates effects of anhedonia and anxiety on social function in patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social dysfunction is common among individuals with schizophrenia. While often attributed to anhedonia, social dysfunction could also result from unrecognized anxiety. We examined the contributions of anhedonia and anxiety to social function using olfactory function to examine whether the domains had separate underpinnings. METHODS: We assessed anhedonia, anxiety and social function as well as olfactory function in well-characterized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and healthy controls. RESULTS: We included 56 patients and 37 controls in our study. Patients exhibited significantly higher levels of anhedonia and anxiety than controls, and the domains were highly correlated in patients. The combination of anhedonia and anxiety more strongly predicted social dysfunction than either measure alone. Smell identification was differentially related to the symptoms, with better performance predicting less anhedonia but more social fear in male patients. LIMITATIONS: The use of self-report measures precludes differentiation between recollected or recounted experience. Aside from smell identification and odour threshold, additional measures of olfaction may be considered for future studies. CONCLUSION: Anhedonia and anxiety were strongly correlated and both negatively impacted social function. The olfactory biomarker results support the conclusion that these domains are separate. Social function in patients with schizophrenia may improve with interventions for anxiety, even in the presence of marked negative symptoms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".