Sequential change in olfaction and (non) motor symptoms: the difference between anosmia and non-anosmia in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Hyposmia is a common prodrome in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). This study investigates whether olfactory changes in PD differ according to the degree of olfactory dysfunction and whether there are changes in motor and non-motor symptoms. Methods The 129 subjects with PD were divided into two groups: anosmia and non-anosmia. All cases were reassessed within 1–3 years after the initial assessment. The assessment included the MDS-Unified PD Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), Beck’s Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and equivalence dose of daily levodopa (LEDD). The generalized estimating equation (GEE) model with an exchangeable correlation structure was used to analyze the change in baseline and follow-up tracking and the disparity in change between these two groups. Results The anosmia group was older and had a longer disease duration than the non-anosmia group. There was a significant decrease in UPSIT after follow-up in the non-anosmia group (β = −3.62, p < 0.001) and a significant difference in the change between the two groups (group-by-time effect, β = 4.03, p < 0.001). In the third part of the UPDRS motor scores, there was a tendency to increase the score in the non-anosmia group compared to the anosmia group (group-by-time effect, β = −4.2, p < 0.038). There was no significant difference in the group-by-time effect for UPDRS total score, LEDD, BDI-II, and MoCA scores. Discussion In conclusion, this study found that olfactory sensation may still regress in PD with a shorter disease course without anosmia, but it remains stable in the anosmia group. Such a decline in olfaction may not be related to cognitive status but may be associated with motor progression.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".