An Italian population-based study of the prevalence of olfactory impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The loss of sense of smell decreases quality of life and may contribute to the failure in recognizing hazardous substances. Given the relevance of olfaction in the daily life, it would be important to recognize undiagnosed olfactory dysfunction in order to prevent these possible complications. Up to now, the prevalence of smell disorders in Italy is unknown because of a lack of epidemiological studies. The aim of the present study is to present the current data on the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in an Italian sample to provide random, population-based data of olfactory dysfunction in adults, based on psychophysical testing and to relate dysfunction to age, sex, cognitive abilities, cognitive reserve and depression level. A total of 703 participants (mean age: 50.6; SD: 19.5; range: 18-94) from eight different Italian regions took part in the study. The sample was stratified in proportion to sex and six age groups: 18-29 (N = 127); 30-39 (N = 115); 40-49 (N = 105), 50-59 (N = 115), 60-69 (N = 89); >70 (N = 152). Olfactory function, cognitive abilities, cognitive reserve and depression were assessed respectively with: “Sniffin’ Sticks” Identification Test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Cognitive Reserve Index and the Beck Depression Inventory. Additionally, sociodemographic data, medical history, and health-related lifestyle information was collected. About 38% of our sample presented olfactory impairments. Multiple regression analysis revealed that age, sex, cognitive abilities, cognitive reserve and depressive symptoms explained a total of 28.5% of the variance in olfactory scores. Higher odor identification scores were associated with female sex, lower age, higher level of cognitive functioning, higher cognitive reserve but, surprisingly, more depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".