Hyposmia as a Predictive Marker of Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyposmia is one of the most common and best-characterized conditions that is also one of the first nonmotor features of Parkinson's disease (PD). The association of hyposmia with PD is widely accepted; however the likelihood of developing PD is unclear. Our meta-analysis aimed to investigate the risk of PD in individuals with hyposmia. METHODS: , 2018, were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Two independent reviewers screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed the quality of studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and pooled data for analysis using random-effects models. RESULTS: Of the 1774 studies retrieved, seven met the inclusion criteria for this review. A total of 3272 hyposmia and 176 PD events were reported over follow-up periods ranging from 3 to 17 years. Hyposmia was associated with a 3.84-fold risk of developing PD (pooled relative risk: 3.84, 95% CI 2.12-6.95). Subgroup analyses identified few differences between different hyposmia assessment methodologies and follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that deficiencies in olfaction are associated with an increased risk of developing PD. Future studies are needed to investigate whether hyposmia is a promising and feasible biomarker for the early diagnosis of PD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".