Effect of Physical Activity on Olfactory Acuity: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Olfactory acuity, which includes detection thresholds, identification and appreciation/intensity, seems to decline with aging, obesity, and various neurological disorders. Knowing that the sense of smell influences energy intake, the interest in protecting this sense is constantly increasing. Physical activity might be a key intervention to counteract the loss of olfactory function. This systematic review aims to explore the literature on the effect of physical activity on olfactory acuity. The search strategy consisted of using index terms and keywords in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews – Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science search engine. Data from 17 studies that include 10 861 participants revealed that physical activity has improved olfactory thresholds, identification, and intensity. More precisely, chronic physical activity seemed to have better effects on olfactory components than acute practice. Even though this review clarified evidence about the effect of physical activity on the sense of smell, better methodological consistency is needed across studies such as standardized experimental conditions, the time of the day data are collected, and similar relative energy intake between participants to produce more robust results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".