Correlation between olfactory function, age, sex, and cognitive reserve index in the Italian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Loss of smell decreases the quality of life and contributes to the failure in recognizing hazardous substances. Given the relevance of olfaction in daily life, it is important to recognize an undiagnosed olfactory dysfunction to prevent these possible complications. Up to now, the prevalence of smell disorders in Italy is unknown due to a lack of epidemiological studies. Hence, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in a sample of Italian adults. METHODS: Six hundred and thirty-three participants (347 woman and 286 men; mean age 44.9 years, SD 17.3, age range 18-86) were recruited from 10 distinct Italian regions. Participants were recruited using a convenience sapling and were divided into six different age groups: 18-29 years (N = 157), 30-39 years (N = 129), 40-49 years (N = 99), 50-59 years (N = 106), > 60 years (N = 142). Olfactory function, cognitive abilities, cognitive reserve, and depression were assessed, respectively, with: Sniffin' Sticks 16-item Odor Identification Test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Cognitive Reserve Index, and the Beck Depression Inventory. Additionally, socio-demographic data, medical history, and health-related lifestyle information were collected. RESULTS: About 27% of participants showed an odor identification score < 12 indicating hyposmia. Multiple regression analysis revealed that OI was significantly correlated with age, sex, and cognitive reserve index, and young women with high cognitive reserve index showing the highest olfactory scores. CONCLUSION: This study provides data on the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in different Italian regions.
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".