Development of a new psychophysical method to assess intranasal trigeminal chemosensory function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a new psychophysical test to assess intranasal trigeminal chemosensory function. METHODOLOGY: The test is similar to the Sniffin’ Sticks test, but using pens impregnated with substances preferentially activating trigeminal afferents. Our test comprises detection threshold, discrimination, identification and lateralization tasks. In a first study, we evaluated healthy controls. In a second study, we evaluated the potential usefulness of this test in patients with rhinological conditions. RESULTS: Study 1: 86 controls were included. Threshold, identification and lateralization performance decreased with age. Test-retest reliability was similar to that of olfactory tests. Study 2: results of the controls group were compared to those of 59 patients (14 allergic rhinitis, 11 chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), 9 without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), and 25 with an olfactory disorder (OD)). Controls had 1) lower detection thresholds compared to CRSwNP, CRSsNP and OD, 2) better discrimination and identification scores compared to OD, and 3) better lateralization scores compared to CRSwNP and CRSsNP. CONCLUSIONS: Our test allows to identify age-related changes in trigeminal chemosensory function. Trigeminal function seems to be differently affected in different pathologies. Further studies are necessary to validate our results and evaluate the impact of olfactory co-activation on the observed results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".