A quick test to objectify smell and taste dysfunction at home: a proof of concept for the validation of the chemosensory perception test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have shown the efficacy of a home test for the self-evaluation of olfactory and gustatory functions in quarantined coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, testing was often limited to COVID-19 participants, and the accuracy of home test kits was rarely compared to standardized testing. This study aims at providing proof of concept for the validation of the new Chemosensory Perception Test (CPT) developed to remotely assess orthonasal olfactory, retronasal olfactory, and gustatory functions in various populations using common North American household items. In the 2 experiments, a total of 121 participants irrespective of having olfactory and/or gustatory complaints from various causes (COVID-19, sinunasal, post-viral, idiopathic) were tested first, with one or many of the following tests: (i) a brief chemosensory questionnaire, (ii) an olfactory test-Sniffin' Sticks Test (SST) or University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), and/or (iii) a gustatory test-Brief Waterless Empirical Taste Test (B-WETT). We then applied the CPT which yielded 3 different subscores, namely orthonasal, retronasal, and gustatory CPT scores. The orthonasal CPT score was significantly correlated with SST (ρ = 0.837, P < 0.001) and UPSIT (ρ = 0.364, P < 0.001) scores, and exhibited an excellent accuracy to identify olfactory dysfunction (OD) as compared to SST (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.923 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.822-1.000], P < 0.001). The retronasal CPT score but not the gustatory CPT score allowed to distinguish between participants with or without subjective gustatory complaint (AUC: 0.818 [95% CI, 0.726-0.909], P < 0.001). The CPT has the ability to identify OD and to quantify subjective gustatory complaints.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".