Effect of physical activity on olfaction acuity: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Physical activity improve odor detection thresholds, odor discrimination, odor identification and odor intensity. • Regular physical activity seemed to have better effects than acute practice. • Better methodological consistency, such as standardized experimental conditions, is needed to obtain more robust results. Olfaction acuity, which includes detection thresholds, discrimination and identification, appears to decline with age, obesity, and various neurological disorders. Knowing that smell influences energy intake, there is a growing interest in protecting this sense. Physical activity could be a key intervention to counteract the loss of olfaction. This systematic review aims to explore the literature on the effect of physical activity on olfaction acuity. The search strategy consisted of using index terms and keywords in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science search engine. Data from 17 trials involving 10,861 participants showed that physical activity improved olfaction thresholds, discrimination, identification and perceived intensity. Regular practice of physical activity seemed to have better effects on olfaction components than acute exercise. Although this review has clarified the evidence on the effects of physical activity on olfaction, better methodological consistency is needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".