Association of olfactory and cognitive function test scores with hippocampal and amygdalar grey matter volume: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few population-based studies including younger adults have examined the potential of olfactory function tests to capture the degree of atrophy in memory-associated brain regions, which cannot be adequately explained by cognitive function tests screening for cognitive impairment. This population-based study investigated associations between high-resolution olfactory test data with few odours and grey matter volumes (GMVs) of the left and right hippocampi, amygdala, parahippocampi, and olfactory cortex, while accounting for differences in cognitive decline, in 1444 participants (aged 31-91 years). Regression analyses included intracranial volume (ICV)-normalised GMVs of eight memory-related regions as objective variables and age, sex, education duration, smoking history, olfaction test score, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Japanese version (MoCA-J) score as explanatory variables. Significant relationships were found between olfactory test scores and ICV-normalised GMVs of the left and right hippocampi and left amygdala (p = 0.020, 0.024, and 0.028, respectively), adjusting for the MoCA-J score. The olfactory test score was significantly related to the right amygdalar GMV (p = 0.020) in older adults (age ≥ 65 years). These associations remained significant after applying Benjamini-Hochberg multiple testing correction (false discovery rate < 0.1). Therefore, olfactory and cognitive function tests may efficiently capture the degree of atrophy in the hippocampi and amygdala, especially in older adults.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".