Assessing modified olfactory training to prevent cognitive decline in MCI high-risk individuals: a multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol in Beijing tertiary hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) presents a significant risk, with a 75-80% likelihood of progressing to dementia. Despite this high risk, there is currently no straightforward and effective treatment strategy to halt or reverse this progression. Olfactory dysfunction, in conjunction with subjective cognitive decline, offers a crucial opportunity for early intervention in older adults at risk of MCI. Conventional olfactory training (COT) has demonstrated potential in enhancing neuroplasticity, which is vital for cognitive health. Initial studies indicate that modified olfactory training (MOT) may yield superior outcomes compared to COT. Thus, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy of MOT in delaying and preventing the progression of MCI in high-risk individuals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This randomised, controlled, multicentre, prospective and open-label trial will be conducted at Peking University Third Hospital and enrol 114 participants, who will be randomised 1:1:1 into three groups: MOT, COT and a control group. Standardised assessments will be conducted at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months to measure cognitive and olfactory outcomes. The primary outcomes will be the change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment score, neuroimaging assessments and the Sniffin' Sticks test score. The secondary outcomes will include olfactory bulb volume and several neuroimaging tests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and has received approval from the Peking University Third Hospital Medical Science Research Ethics Committee (2023-347-01). The results will be disseminated through publication in scientific peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06821828.
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 | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.004 |
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".