Association Between Olfactory Test Data with Multiple Levels of Odor Intensity and Suspected Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Olfactory function decline has recently been reported to be associated with a risk of cognitive impairment. Few population-based studies have included younger adults when examining the association between olfactory test data with multiple odor intensities and suspected cognitive impairment. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between high-resolution olfactory test data with fewer odors and suspected cognitive impairments. We also examined the differences between older and younger adults in this association. METHODS: The Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) was administered to 1,450 participants, with three odor-intensity-level olfactometry using six different odors. Logistic regressions to discriminate suspected cognitive impairment were conducted to examine the association, adjusted for age, sex, education duration, and smoking history. Data were collected from the Program by Tohoku University Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, with an additional olfactory test conducted between 2019 and 2021. RESULTS: We generally observed that the lower the limit of distinguishable odor intensity was, the higher the MoCA-J score was. The combination of spearmint and stuffy socks contributed most to the distinction between suspected and unsuspected cognitive impairment. Furthermore, the association was significant in women aged 60-74 years (adjusted odds ratio 0.881, 95% confidence interval [0.790, 0.983], p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate an association between the limit of distinguishable odor intensity and cognitive function. The olfactory test with multiple odor intensity levels using fewer odors may be applicable for the early detection of mild cognitive impairment, especially in older women aged 60-74 years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".