Survey on Olfactory Testing by Pediatric Neurologists: Is the Olfactory a “True” Cranial Nerve?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The olfactory nerve was conceptualized in the 4th century BC by Alcmaeon and described anatomically by Winslow in 1733. Cranial nerves (CNs) were named and numbered by Soemmerring in 1791. Notions still prevail that the olfactory (CN1) is not a "true" cranial nerve. METHODS: To confirm our impression that the olfactory nerve is infrequently tested by North American pediatric neurologists, a survey was distributed to members of national pediatric neurology societies in Mexico, Canada, and the United States. A total of 233 responses were received to 6 multiple-choice questions regarding practice patterns examining CN1 in neonates and children and in metabolic, endocrine, and genetic disorders and cerebral malformations. Two of the questions addressed familiarity with neonatal olfactory reflexes and asked whether the olfactory is a "true" cranial nerve. RESULTS: Only 16% to 24% of North American pediatric neurologists examine CN1 in neonates, even in conditions in which olfaction may be impaired. About 40% of respondents were aware of olfactory reflexes. A minority 15% did not consider CN1 as a "true" cranial nerve. CONCLUSIONS: Olfactory evaluation in neonates is simple, rapid, and inexpensive. It tests parts of the brain not otherwise examined. It may assist diagnosis in cerebral malformations; metabolic, endocrine, and hypoxic encephalopathies; and some genetic diseases, including chromosomopathies. CN1 is neuroanatomically unique and fulfills criteria of a true sensory cranial nerve. We recommend that olfaction be routinely or selectively included during neurologic examination of neonates and children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".