Association Between Olfactory Dysfunction and Cognitive Impairment in Dementia-Free Older Adults: A Prospective Cohort Study in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies assessing olfactory function and cognition have mostly been cross-sectional, and few have investigated the Asian geriatric population. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships of olfaction with global or domain-specific cognitive function in Taiwanese community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: This cohort study (2015-2019) is part of the Taiwan Initiative for Geriatric Epidemiological Research. The Taiwanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-T) and a battery of neuropsychological tests were assessed at baseline and at a two-year follow-up. The cross-culture modified Sniffin' Sticks Identification Test (SSIT) was utilized to measure olfactory function. Generalized linear mixed models were used to examine the association of olfaction with cognitive performance over two years. RESULTS: Data were collected from 376 participants (55.1% women), with a mean age of 75.6 years. A one-point decrease in the SSIT score (worsening of olfaction) was associated with worse global cognition (MoCA-T: βˆ= -0.13), memory (βˆ= -0.08 to -0.06), and verbal fluency (βˆ= -0.07). Compared with an SSIT score ≥ 11 (normosmia), an SSIT score < 8 (anosmia) was associated with worse global cognition (MoCA-T: βˆ= -0.99), memory (βˆ= -0.48 to -0.42), executive function (Trail Making Test A: βˆ= -0.36), attention (digit span backward: βˆ= -0.34), and verbal fluency (βˆ= -0.45). After stratified analyses, the associations remained in older adults ≥ 75 years, males, and non-carriers of apolipoprotein E ɛ4 in terms of global cognition, memory, and verbal fluency. CONCLUSIONS: Odor identification deficits were associated with poor global or domain-specific cognitive function in a four-year cohort of community-dwelling older adults. Cognitive assessments should be conducted in dementia-free elderly individuals with impaired odor identification.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".