The association between diabetes and olfactory impairment in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Evidence suggests that olfactory impairment (OI) may be a degenerative neurologic complication of diabetes; however, the association is not yet well established. The objective of this work was to systematically review existing literature on the association between diabetes and OI in adults, with meta‐analysis of evaluable studies. Methods A literature search encompassing 358 abstracts from the last 75 years in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane was performed. English‐language articles investigating adults with diabetes and OI in comparison to control groups with original data and ≥7 subjects were included. The Newcastle‐Ottawa scale was applied for quality assessment. Two investigators independently reviewed all articles. For meta‐analysis, the odds ratio of OI in diabetes compared with control groups was calculated using the fixed effects model. Results The initial search yielded 358 abstracts, from which 21 articles were reviewed and 11 articles (n = 6,747) were included. Studies included were case‐control (64%) or cross‐sectional (36%) with evidence level 3b. On the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale, the mean quality assessment score for case‐control and cross‐sectional studies was 7.4 (maximum of 9) and 7.0 (maximum of 10), respectively. A statistically significant association between diabetes and olfaction compared with controls was found in 6 (55%) of the 11 articles. Four studies were eligible for meta‐analysis, which yielded an overall odds of having OI with diabetes as 1.58 times more likely than in control groups (95% CI [1.16, 2.16]; I 2 = 10.3%). Conclusions The reviewed studies support a significant association between diabetes and OI. Further studies are warranted to characterize this association. Level of Evidence 3a
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".