Development of a simplified smell test to identify Parkinson’s disease using multiple cohorts, machine learning and item response theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To develop a simplified smell test for identifying patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), we reevaluated the Sniffin'-Sticks-Identification-Test (SST-ID) and University-of-Pennsylvania-Smell-Identification-Test (UPSIT), using three case-control studies. These included 301 patients with PD or dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), 68 subjects with multiple-system atrophy (MSA) or progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), and 281 healthy controls (HC). Scents were ranked by area-under-the-curve values for group classification and results leveraged by 8 published studies with 5853 individuals. PD/DLB patients showed markedly worse olfaction than controls, whereas scores for MSA/PSP subjects were intermediate. We identified and validated a subset of 7 shared odorants that performed similarly to the traditional 16-scent SST-ID and 40-scent UPSIT tests in distinguishing PD/DLB from HC. There, the identification of 4 or fewer scents out of 7 served as an effective cut-off between the two groups. We also identified a critical role for distractors (from correct answers) and age on olfaction performance.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".