Cognitive impairment is correlated with olfactory identification deficits in older Japanese adults: A cross‐sectional study using objective and subjective olfactory measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Olfactory impairment is associated with cognitive impairment. However, differences between subjective and objective olfactory impairment measurements in older adults and their relationship with cognitive impairment are unclear. METHODS: We assessed the relationship between cognitive and olfactory impairments via a single-center observational study in 2020. Forty-seven individuals who visited our memory clinic were enrolled and asked to complete objective and subjective olfactory tests. Participants had dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or normal cognition. We administered the Open Essence (a simple card-type odor identification test) and self-administered odor questionnaire to assess objective and subjective olfaction, respectively, and the Mini-Mental State Examination to assess cognitive function. RESULTS: Older age was related to decreased Open Essence scores (P < 0.001). Compared with the mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition groups, the dementia group had significantly lower Open Essence scores (P < 0.001). Cognitive impairment was also associated with decreased Open Essence scores after adjusting for age, sex, and education (P < 0.001). Participants with dementia did not obtain lower self-administered odor questionnaire scores than those with normal cognition, and they tended to be unaware of their olfactory impairment. CONCLUSION: Open Essence scores significantly decreased according to the degree of cognitive impairment. Participants with dementia were unaware of their olfactory impairment, as indicated by odor questionnaire scores. Objective and subjective scores of olfaction differed in participants with dementia. Concomitant assessment of objective and subjective olfaction is useful to screen older adults with both olfactory and cognitive impairments. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2022; 22: 924-929.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".