ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN OLFACTORY IMPAIRMENT AND COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS IN PATIENTS WITH PARKINSON DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Olfactory impairment and cognitive impairment are common non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). Olfactory impairment may be present even many years before the main symptoms of the disease develop. The associations between olfactory loss and cognition in PD are evaluated in this study. METHODS: 31 patients with PD and 31 healthy subjects were included in this study. The Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and Hoehn and Yahr Scale (H&Y Scale) were administered to all subjects. Butanol threshold test and Sniffin'Sticks test were used to assess olfaction. The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clock Drawing Test (CDT) and Stroop Color Word Test (SCWT) were used to assess cognition. RESULTS: The Sniffin'Sticks test scores were significantly lower in the Parkinson group in comparison to the control group (p<0.001). The rate of anosmia was 90% in the PD group while this rate was found to be 54.8% in control group (p=0.005). A significant correlation was found between butanol test scores and stoop 5 and 5 errors. Significant correlations were found between the Sniffin'Sticks scores and MMSE scores (p=0.047) and orientation (p=0.041) and language (p=0.003) functions of the MMSE test. Worse olfaction was associated with worse memory. CONCLUSIONS: In PD, olfactory impairment correlates with cognitive impairment and olfactory tests may be used to predict the likelihood of developing dementia in this patient population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".