Intranasal Theophylline: A Novel Method to Treat Patients with Smell Loss (Hyposmia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the oral phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitor theophylline has proven useful in the treatment of hyposmia its efficacy has been limited by its side effects, its slow action to improve olfactory function requiring months of drug use and by development of drug resistance. To overcome these adverse effects an open label, single source clinical trial using intranasal theophylline was performed in 10 patients with hyposmia before and after both oral and intranasal theophylline. Intranasal theophylline was administered daily in each naris at a dose of 20μg of buffered drug through use of a clinically adapted syringe which delivered the drug into the mid‐upper nose. Patients were studied weekly for two weeks and then biweekly for four weeks. Both subjective and objective measurements of smell and taste function were obtained. After one week of intranasal drug eight of the 10 patients reported subjective improvement in both taste and smell function and appetite. Objective measurements with smell and taste function tests also improved in each of these patients. This improvement continued over the subsequent three weeks of the study. No side effects were experienced by any patient. Blood theophylline levels at the time of maximal smell and taste improvement were 0. After one week of discontinuing the intranasal drug two patients reported subjective diminution in smell function confirmed by objective smell and taste measurements whereas six patients maintained improvement for two months after intranasal theophylline was discontinued. This open label clinical trial suggests that intranasal theophylline is both safe and more effective than oral theophylline in the treatment of hyposmia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".