Olfactory Impairment and Frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Olfactory impairment (OI) and frailty are prevalent conditions associated with aging, but studies investigating their association with each other have been discordant. Objective: To summarize current evidence surrounding the association between OI and frailty. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from inception to November 28, 2023. Study Selection: This study included observational studies investigating the association between objectively or subjectively assessed OI and objectively evaluated frailty among adults. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent authors extracted data into a structured template. Maximally adjusted estimates were pooled using a random-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 values. Additional prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. This study used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for bias assessment and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework for overall evidence quality evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cross-sectional association between OI and frailty, for which the odds of frailty were compared between participants with and without OI. The secondary outcome was the cross-sectional association between frailty and OI, for which the odds of OI were compared between participants with and without frailty. Results: This study included 10 studies with 10 624 patients (52.9% female; mean [SD] age, 62.9 [9.6] years). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of studies ranged from low to moderate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation scores ranged from low to moderate. OI was associated with a 2.32-fold (odds ratio [OR], 2.32; 95% CI, 1.63-3.31; I2 = 0%) greater odds of frailty compared with individuals with healthy olfactory function. The odds of OI was progressively greater with categorical frailty status, with a 1.55-fold (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.32-1.82; I2 = 0%), 2.28-fold (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.96-2.65; I2 = 0%), and 4.67-fold (OR, 4.67; 95% CI, 2.77-7.86; I2 = 0%) increase in odds for individuals with prefrailty, frailty, and the most frailty, respectively, compared with robust individuals. The results demonstrated stability in subgroup analyses (geographical continent of study, objective vs subjective olfactory assessment) and sensitivity tests. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that there is an association between OI and frailty, with an increase in the odds of OI with worsening categorical frailty status among individuals with prefrailty, frailty, and the most frailty. OI may be a potential biomarker for frailty. Future studies could delve into whether OI may be a modifiable risk factor for frailty.
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 | 0.006 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".