MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396792914 · doi:10.3233/jad-231377

Olfactory Dysfunction and Alzheimer’s Disease: A Review

2024· review· en· W4396792914 on OpenAlexaff
A. McLaren, Michael D. Kawaja

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseasePresenilinDementiaNeuroscienceAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineMechanism (biology)Apolipoprotein EAmyloid (mycology)BioinformaticsPsychologyPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia, and it is one of the leading causes of death globally. Identification and validation of biomarkers that herald the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease is of paramount importance for early reliable diagnosis and effective pharmacological therapy commencement. A substantial body of evidence has emerged demonstrating that olfactory dysfunction is a preclinical symptom of neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer's disease. While a correlation between olfactory dysfunction and Alzheimer's disease onset and progression in humans exists, the mechanism underlying this relationship remains unknown. The aim of this article is to review the current state of knowledge regarding the range of potential factors that may contribute to the development of Alzheimer's disease-related olfactory dysfunction. This review predominantly focuses on genetic mutations associated with Alzheimer's disease including amyloid-β protein precursor, presenilin 1 and 2, and apolipoprotein E mutations, that may (in varying ways) drive the cellular events that lead to and sustain olfactory dysfunction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.291
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.075 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207