Olfactory bulb surroundings can help to distinguish Parkinson’s disease from non-parkinsonian olfactory dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The olfactory bulb is one of the first regions of insult in Parkinson's disease (PD), consistent with the early onset of olfactory dysfunction. Investigations of the olfactory bulb may, therefore, help early pre-motor diagnosis. We aimed to investigate olfactory bulb and its surrounding regions in PD-related olfactory dysfunction when specifically compared to other forms of non-parkinsonian olfactory dysfunction (NPOD) and healthy controls. METHODS: We carried out MRI-based olfactory bulb volume measurements from T2-weighted imaging in scans from 15 patients diagnosed with PD, 15 patients with either post-viral or sinonasal NPOD and 15 control participants. Further, we applied a deep learning model (convolutional neural network; CNN) to scans of the olfactory bulb and its surrounding area to classify PD-related scans from NPOD-related scans. RESULTS: Compared to controls, both PD and NPOD patients had smaller olfactory bulbs, when measured manually (both p < .001) whereas no difference was found between PD and NPOD patients. In contrast, when a CNN was used to differentiate between PD patients and NPOD patients, an accuracy of 88.3% was achieved. The cortical area above the olfactory bulb which stretches around and into the olfactory sulcus appears to be a region of interest in the differentiation between PD and NPOD patients. CONCLUSION: Measures from and around the olfactory bulb in combination with the use of a deep learning model may help differentiate PD patients from patients with NPOD, which may be used to develop early diagnostic tools based on olfactory dysfunction.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".