Chemosensory dysfunctions induced by COVID-19 can persist up to 7 months: A study of over 700 healthcare workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several studies have revealed either self-reported chemosensory alterations in large groups or objective quantified chemosensory impairments in smaller populations of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. However, due to the great variability in published results regarding COVID-19-induced chemosensory impairments and their follow-up, prognosis for chemosensory functions in patients with such complaints remains unclear. Our objective is to describe the various chemosensory alterations associated with COVID-19 and their prevalence and evolution after infection. A cross-sectional study of 704 healthcare workers with a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between 28/2/2020 and 14/6/2020 was conducted 3 to 7 months after onset of symptoms. Data were collected with an online questionnaire. Outcomes included differences in reported chemosensory self-assessment of olfactory, gustatory, and trigeminal functions across time points and Chemosensory Perception Test scores from an easy-to-use at-home self-administered chemosensory test. Among the 704 participants, 593 (84.2%) were women, the mean (SD) age was 42 (12) years, and the questionnaire was answered on average 4.8 (0.8) months after COVID-19. During COVID-19, a decrease in olfactory, gustatory, and trigeminal sensitivities were reported by 81.3%, 81.5% and 48.0% respectively. Three to seven months later, reduced sensitivity was still reported by 52.0%, 41.9% and 23.3% respectively. Chemosensory Perception Test scores indicate that 19.5% of participants had objective olfactory impairment. These data suggest a significant proportion of COVID-19 cases have persistent chemosensory impairments at 3 to 7 months after their infection but the majority of those who had completely lost their olfactory, gustatory, and trigeminal sensitivity have improved.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".