Evaluation of Olfactory and Gustatory Functions in Patients With Fibromyalgia Syndrome: Its Relationship With Anxiety, Depression, and Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate smell and taste functions in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and the relationship between smell and taste functions, anxiety, depression, alexithymia, and quality of life (QoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 30 patients with FMS (3 males, 27 females; mean age 46.0±8.5 years; range, 18 to 70 years) and 20 age- and sex-matched healthy participants (2 males, 18 females; mean age 45.7±10.0 years; range, 18 to 70 years). Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) was applied to FMS patients. Hamilton Anxiety Scale, Depression Scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and EuroQol Questionnaire Five-Dimensions (EQ-5D) were applied to all participants. Sniffin' Sticks test was used for olfactory function analysis while taste strips were used for gustatory function analysis. RESULTS: The FMS patients had higher anxiety, depression, and alexithymia while lower QoL scores. Olfactory and gustatory function test scores were lower in FMS patients. Total olfactory function scores were 25.96 and 36.40 for FMS and control groups, respectively. For taste function, they were 9.93 and 13.55, respectively. These scores were negatively correlated with anxiety, depression, and alexithymia scores whereas positively correlated with EQ-5D index score. There was no significant correlation with FIQ score. CONCLUSION: Anxiety and depression are common symptoms of FMS. Patients with FMS had altered olfactory and gustatory functions and these impairments were correlated with their anxiety and depression. Further studies with larger sample sizes including functional magnetic resonance imaging evaluation should be performed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".