Could olfactory identification be a prognostic factor in detecting cognitive impairment risk in the elderly?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging contributes to the deterioration of the olfactory system in humans. Several studies indicate that the olfactory identification test alone may function as a screening test for olfactory dysfunction and they are more feasible to apply in clinical practice. Olfactory identification may be a predictor for cognitive impairment. Multiple studies have considered the use of odor identification as a measure to identify the conversion from normality to mild cognitive impairment or dementia. The objectives were (i) to elucidate the associations between cognitive status and olfactory identification performance in aging; (ii) understand the predictive value of olfactory capacity in identifying subjects with cognitive impairment risk; and (iii) to study how cognitive status and olfactory identification relate with other variables of wellness in aging, such as functional capabilities and clinical measures. For this purpose, a group of 149 participants (77.15 ± 7.29 years; 73 women of 76.7 ± 8 years and 76 men of 77.6 ± 6.52 years) were recruited and were subjected to a sociodemographic questionnaire, a psychological screening tool of general cognitive status, an olfactory identification evaluation, and clinical measures. The participants were divided into groups based on their cutoff scores of previous scientific reports about the Spanish version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Our results indicate an age-associated decline in olfactory identification ability and intensity of odor perception. The predictive ability of olfactory identification scores for the risk of mild and severe impairment is around 80%. Olfactory identification decreases with cognitive function. Performance in odor identification is associated with impairment of episodic memory and executive functions. These findings further our current understanding of the association between cognition and olfaction, and support olfactory assessment in screening those at higher risk of dementia.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".