Patients’ Perspectives on Qualitative Olfactory Dysfunction: Thematic Analysis of Social Media Posts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of qualitative olfactory disorders is underestimated. Parosmia, the distorted perception of familiar odors, and phantosmia, the experience of odors in the absence of a stimulus, can arise following postinfectious anosmia, and the incidences of both have increased substantially since the outbreak of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to explore the symptoms and sequalae of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction syndrome using unstructured and unsolicited threads from social media, and to articulate the perspectives and concerns of patients affected by these debilitating olfactory disorders. METHODS: A thematic analysis and content analysis of posts in the AbScent Parosmia and Phantosmia Support group on Facebook was conducted between June and December 2020. RESULTS: In this paper, we identify a novel symptom, olfactory perseveration, which is a triggered, identifiable, and usually unpleasant olfactory percept that persists in the absence of an ongoing stimulus. We also observe fluctuations in the intensity and duration of symptoms of parosmia, phantosmia, and olfactory perseveration. In addition, we identify a group of the most common items (coffee, meat, onion, and toothpaste) that trigger distortions; however, people have difficulty describing these distortions, using words associated with disgust and revulsion. The emotional aspect of living with qualitative olfactory dysfunction was evident and highlighted the detrimental impact on mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative and unsolicited data acquired from social media has provided useful insights into the patient experience of parosmia and phantosmia, which can inform rehabilitation strategies and ongoing research into understanding the molecular triggers associated with parosmic distortions and research into patient benefit.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".