Olfactory identification deficits are associated with cognitive decline in Chinese older adults: The Taizhou Imaging Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Olfaction function has emerged as a potential predictor of cognitive decline and dementia recently. We accessed the association of olfaction and cognitive function in a Chinese cohort. Method Participants in this study were part of the community‐based Taizhou Imaging Study. At the first wave of cognitive function follow‐up, 770 individuals underwent neuropsychological testing from July 2018 to August 2019, including four cognitive domains‐memory, executive function and attention, visuospatial function, and language. Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used to assess participants’ global cognition. Among them, 686 participants underwent olfactory identification testing using 12‐item Sniffin’s Sticks test. Dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were adjudicated by a committee of experts, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM‐IV) and Petersen RC’s criteria, respectively. After data quality control, 684 participants were included in this analysis (Figure 1). Beta regression was used to evaluate the association between olfaction and cognitive function (continuous variables), logistic regression was used to assess the association between olfaction and cognitive status (categorical variable). Potential confounders were adjusted in two models: Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, and years of education; Model 2 was additionally adjusted for smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, exercise, hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia. Result A total of 54 (7.9%) individuals were diagnosed as dementia, 165 (24.1%) individuals were adjudicated as MCI (Table 1). In the fully adjusted Model 2, the associations remained significant (Beta = 0.062 and 0.093, respectively; both P <0.001) (Table 2). Olfactory identification scores were associated with domain‐specific cognitive function scores in Model 2 (visuospatial function: Beta = 0.072, P = 0.003; short delay recall: Beta = 0.120, P <0.001; long delay recall: Beta = 0.057, P = .010; language: Beta = 0.107, P <0.001). Moreover, we found olfactory identification was negatively associated with MCI in Model 2 (odds ration [OR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81, 0.96) and dementia (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.87) (Table 3). Conclusion Olfactory identification are associated with both global and domain‐specific cognitive function and could serve as a protector for cognitive decline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".