The impact of COVID-19-related smell dysfunction on sexual and mental wellbeing: Data from a longitudinal sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olfactory disorders are associated with poor sexual and mental wellbeing, but prior work mainly consists of retrospective and cross-sectional reports. The current study assessed their prospective associations. 73 patients with COVID-19-associated olfactory dysfunction were recruited between 2021 and 2023 at a Smell Clinic in Dresden, Germany. Patients were assessed twice, about 6 months apart. On each occasion, patients’ olfactory functioning (i.e., psychophysical tests and self-rated function) and sexual and mental wellbeing were measured (i.e., sexual frequency, sexual desire, wellbeing, anxiety symptoms, and depressive symptoms). Within-person improvements in psychophysical olfactory functioning were associated with increased sexual frequency. In a subset of 51 people in stable romantic partnerships, improved psychophysical olfactory functioning predicted increased sexual frequency and increased sexual desire. No evidence emerged supporting an association between improvements in olfactory functioning and mental health or wellbeing outcomes A decline in sexual function may be an early reaction to olfactory dysfunction. Individuals with recent onset of olfactory disorders may benefit from sexual health support. • Olfaction, sexual and mental health were assessed twice over six months. • Improved psychophysical olfaction positively associated with sexual health. • Association was pronounced in subgroup who were in stable romantic relationships. • Changes in olfactory function are related to emotional and sexual wellbeing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".