[Developing a psychiatrist's flair: Lessons learned from two clinical cases of olfactory reference syndrome].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olfaction is often neglected in psychiatric semiology, despite its clinical relevance and impact on social functioning. The olfactory reference syndrome (ORS), characterized by a false belief that a person emits a foul odor, causes severe distress and disrupts social functioning. This article aims to highlight the importance of olfaction in psychiatric semiology, with a focus on ORS. We present a study of two men with ORS, followed in a psychotic disorder unit, using the CARE criteria. A literature review conducted according to PRISMA guidelines examines 53 studies from PubMed, PsychInfo, Google Scholar, and Cairns. By complementing the clinical presentations, our analysis facilitates a discussion of current knowledge on ORS, refuting, nuancing and validating existing hypotheses regarding its nosography and etiology. We suggest to further explore our understanding of olfaction through its association with emotions, the formation of impressions, and the Theory of Mind. Better grasping how olfaction influences psychological and social functioning could improve diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to ORS in psychiatry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".