Association between new-onset anosmia and positive SARS-CoV-2 tests among people accessing outpatient testing in Toronto, Ontario: a retrospective cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reports have suggested that anosmia is strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but patients were often asked about this symptom after their diagnosis. This study assessed associations between prospectively reported anosmia and other symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 positivity in community testing centres in Toronto, Ontario. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study in which data were collected from 2 COVID-19 assessment centres affiliated with 2 hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, from Apr. 5 to Sept. 30, 2020. We included symptomatic profiles of all people who underwent a SARS-CoV-2 test at either clinic within the study period. We used generalized estimating equations to account for repeat visits and to assess associations between anosmia and other symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 positivity. RESULTS: A total of 83 443 SARS-CoV-2 tests were conducted across the 2 sites for 72 692 participants during the study period. Of all tests, 1640 (2.0%) were positive; 837 (51.0%) of people who tested positive were asymptomatic. The adjusted odds ratio for the association between anosmia and test positivity was 5.29 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.50-6.22), with sensitivity of 0.138 (95% CI 0.121-0.154), specificity of 0.980 (95% CI 0.979-0.981), a positive predictive value of 0.120 (95% CI 0.106-0.135) and a negative predictive value of 0.983 (95% CI 0.982-0.984). INTERPRETATION: Anosmia had high specificity and a positive predictive value of 12% for SARS-CoV-2 infection in this community population with low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity. The presence of anosmia should increase clinical suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and our findings suggest that people presenting with this symptom should be tested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".