MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399162756 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1787139

Performance of a cost-effective olfactory test to evaluate hyposmia in Parkinson's disease patients

2024· article· en· W4399162756 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josevânia Fulgêncio de Lima Arruda, Liene Duarte Silva, Rodrigo Tavares Brisson, Gabriel de Castro Micheli, Marco Antônio Lima, Ana Lúcia Zuma de Rosso, Rita de Cássia Leite Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueArquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyposmiaParkinson's diseaseDiseaseMedicineMotor symptomsTest (biology)AudiologyInternal medicineBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Parkinson's disease (PD) causes motor and non-motor symptoms such as hyposmia, which is evaluated through olfactory tests in the clinical practice. Objective To assess the feasibility of using the modified Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (mCCCRC) olfactory test and to compare its performance with the Sniffin' Sticks-12 (SS-12, Burghart Messtechnik GmbH, Wedel, Germany) test. Methods A transversal case-control study in which the patients were divided into the PD group (PDG) and the control group (CG). The cost and difficulty in handling substances to produce the mCCCRC test kits were evaluated. Sociodemographic characteristics, smoking habits, past coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections, self-perception of odor sense, and cognition through the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were also evaluated. The PDG was scored by part III of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III) and the Hoehn and Yahr Scale (H&Y) scale. Correlations were assessed through the Spearman rank correlation coefficient test (ρ, or rho). Results The mCCCRC test was easily manufactured and handled at a cost ten times lower compared with the SS-12. The groups (PDG: n = 34; CG: n = 38) were similar in terms of age, sex, level of schooling, smoking habits, and history of COVID-19. The tests results showed moderate correlation (rho = 0.65; p < 0.0001). The CG presented better cognitive performance and scored better in both tests (p < 0.0001). There was a tendency for a negative correlation with age, but good correlation with the MoCA (p = 0.0029). The results of the PDG group showed no correlation with olfactory results and motor performance or disease duration. The self-perception of hyposmia was low in both groups. Conclusion The mCCCRC is an easy-to-apply and inexpensive method that demonstrated a similar performance to that of the SS-12 in evaluating olfaction in PD patients and healthy controls.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArquivos de Neuro-PsiquiatriaSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207