Olfactory Identification in Subjective Cognitive Decline: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, subjective cognitive decline (SCD) has been considered to be one of the first signs of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Since this potential early marker is sensitive but not specific to AD, combining it with other markers could ensure higher accuracy when predicting which persons with SCD will convert to AD. Since olfactory dysfunction is observable in both AD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), it is a promising marker that could help improve the early diagnosis of AD. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to verify whether the presence of SCD is associated with a decrease in olfactory identification ability. METHODS: We collected articles from the following databases: PsychNet, PubMed, Ebsco, and ProQuest using the keywords: "SCD", "subjective cognitive decline", "subjective cognitive impairment", "subjective memory impairment", "subjective memory decline", "cognitive complaints", "memory complaints", "cognitive concerns", "memory concerns", "olfac*" and "smell". We included articles according to the following criteria: 1) participants aged 50 and over; 2) presence of an SCD group or a conceptual equivalent; 3) presence of a healthy control group with the same age range; and 4) assessment of olfactory identification ability. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Small and homogeneous effects were observed for olfactory identification alteration in individuals with SCD relative to controls (g = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14]). CONCLUSION: Despite the low number of studies included, the findings suggest that odor identification is slightly altered in SCD compared to healthy older adults. This alteration in individuals with SCD could be an early marker of AD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".