Early Parosmia Signs and Affective States Predict Depression and Anxiety Symptoms 6 Months After a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This longitudinal study aimed to evaluate qualitative (parosmia) and quantitative (hyposmia/anosmia) olfaction 2-4 weeks (baseline) and six months (follow-up) after a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). We further evaluated the predictive value of baseline depression, anxiety and olfaction scores on depression and anxiety at follow-up. At baseline, olfactory function and affective state were assessed in 107 participants (53 patients with mild TBI; 54 healthy controls). At follow-up, data were collected on 71 participants (32 patients, 39 controls). Both at baseline and follow-up, patients with mild TBI showed more signs of parosmia, depression and anxiety, compared to controls. However, patients did not, neither at baseline nor follow-up, show quantitative olfactory impairment. Moreover, while baseline scores of depression and anxiety helped predict the development of symptoms of depression and anxiety at follow up, adding parosmia scores to the prediction model significantly increased the amount of explained variances. Clinicians should implement affective and olfactory evaluation to predict patients' affective outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".