The association of gustatory dysfunction, olfactory dysfunction, and cognition in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association of gustatory dysfunction (GD) with quality of life (QOL) and cognition in older adults is understudied. Our objective was to study the prevalence of GD in the community and explore impacts and associated factors. METHODS: A prospective, multi-institutional, pre-corona virus disease (COVID) cohort of adults aged 50 years and older had smell and taste testing using "Sniffin' Sticks" (TDI) and "Taste Strips." The impact of GD on mood, QOL, and social interaction was assessed through visual analog scales. Subjects completed the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders, Patient Health Questionnaire 9, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the DeJong scale of loneliness. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients, average age of 54.7 years, were enrolled. Thirty-two percent experienced GD on taste strips, and 62% experienced olfactory dysfunction (OD) on TDI. Almost 30% (29.5%) had both GD and OD. GD and OD correlated with worsened cognitive function on MMSE (r = 0.392 and 0.05, p = 0.018 and 0.003). Subjects with both GD and OD had worse MMSE than either alone (p = 0.003). Dry mouth and difficult chewing correlated with GD (r = -0.37 and -0.31, p = 0.10 and 0.37). Self-reported GD and OD were correlated (r = 0.46, p = 0.001), as were psychophysical GD and OD (r = 0.394, p = 0.008). GD did not correlate with other metrics. CONCLUSION: Thirty-two percent of subjects experienced GD on psychophysical testing, yet most are unaware without impacts on daily life. However, GD correlates with worsened cognitive function. Taste testing may play a role in screening of neurocognitive decline, and multisensory dysfunction may indicate of worsened cognitive states.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".