Impact of renal replacement therapies on olfactory ability: results of a cross-sectional case control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several studies have suggested that chronic kidney disease (CKD) may be associated with olfactory impairment. However, to date, the impact of renal replacement therapies has only been partly defined. METHODS: We tested the olfactory function of 235 participants [50 kidney transplant recipients (KT), 49 hemodialyzed patients (HD), 30 peritoneal dialysis patients (PD), 51 patients with CKD not on dialysis (ND-CKD) and 55 healthy subjects (HS)] by the Sniffin' Sticks test (Burghardt®, Wedel, Germany), including the sub-tests for the determination of odor threshold (T), odor discrimination (D), odor identification (I). Each subtest result was then summed up to a composite score, known as the TDI score. The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT22), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test and olfactory function Visual Analogue Scale (ofVAS) were also performed. RESULTS: The mean TDI score was significantly lower (and consistent with hyposmia), in HD, PD and ND-CKD compared to HS and KT (ANOVA p < 0.001). Similar results were observed in the I and D tests, and with the T score, though with regard to the latter, only in PD and ND-CKD patients. Multiple comparisons among groups demonstrated no significant differences between KT and HS. After adjustments for confounding factors, a significant linear association was found between both urea (β - 0.03, p < 0.003) and eGFR (β 0.08, p < 0.001) with TDI score. No significant association was observed between the TDI score and the ofVAS score (p = 0.293). CONCLUSIONS: Olfactory impairment affects a large number of CKD patients in the pre-dialysis phase as well as those on dialysis. Kidney transplantation may reverse this condition with a possible positive impact on the quality of life and social behaviors/relationships.
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) | 0.001 | 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".