Association of Olfactory Impairment With All-Cause Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Olfactory impairment is highly prevalent and associated with multiple comorbidities, including neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, nutritional, and immune disorders. However, epidemiologic associations between olfactory impairment and mortality are discordant. Objective: To systematically clarify the epidemiologic associations between olfactory impairment and mortality. Data Sources: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to August 13, 2021. Study Selection: Two blinded reviewers selected observational studies published as full-length, English-language articles in peer-reviewed journals that reported the presence or severity of chronic olfactory impairment, whether objectively measured or self-reported, in association with any mortality estimate, among adults aged 18 years or older. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data, evaluated study bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and appraised the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and a PROSPERO-registered protocol. Maximally adjusted estimates were pooled using mixed-effects models, heterogeneity was measured using I2 statistics, sources of heterogeneity were investigated using meta-regression and subgroup meta-analyses, and publication bias was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality. Results: One retrospective cohort study and 10 prospective cohort studies (with a total of 21 601 participants) from 1088 nonduplicated records were included. Ten studies had a low risk of bias, whereas 1 study had a moderate risk; exclusion of the latter did not alter conclusions. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. Olfactory loss was associated with a significantly higher pooled hazard of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80; I2 = 82%). Meta-regression sufficiently explained heterogeneity, with longer mean follow-up duration weakening the pooled association, accounting for 91.3% of heterogeneity. Self-reported and objective effect sizes were similar. Associations were robust to trim-and-fill adjustment and the Egger test for publication bias. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that olfactory impairment is associated with all-cause mortality and may be a marker of general health and biological aging. Further research is required to establish the underlying mechanisms and the scope for interventions.
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 | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".