Validity and Reliability of the French Olfactory Disorders Questionnaire-10
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance Most French Olfactory Questionnaires are time consuming, which may affect the patient participation. Objective To validate a short French version of the Olfactory Disorders Questionnaire (Fr-ODQ). Design Prospective controlled study. Setting Multicenter study. Participants Patients with long-lasting olfactory dysfunction (OD) treated with platelet-rich plasma into the olfactory clefts and asymptomatic subjects. Intervention Development and validation of a short ODQ. Main Outcomes Individuals completed the full Fr-ODQ. The Threshold, Discrimination, and Identification (TDI) test was performed in OD patients. A combined statistical analysis was performed to determine the most informative items of the Fr-ODQ to develop a shorter version. The internal consistency was determined with Cronbach’s alpha. The reliability and external validity were evaluated through a test-retest approach and by correlating with the Fr-ODQ. Both the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the threshold of the short ODQ version were determined. Results A total of 263 patients (173 [65.8%] females) and 129 controls (92 [71.3%] females) completed the evaluations. The mean age of patients was 51.2 ± 15.3 years. The mean duration of OD was 42.4 ± 54.3 months. The biostatistical models selected 10 essential items composing the Fr-ODQ-10. The baseline Fr-ODQ-10 was significantly correlated with the TDI ( r s = 0.228; P = .001) and the Fr-ODQ ( r s = 0.875; P = .001), demonstrating high external validity. Fr-ODQ-10 was significantly lower in controls compared to OD patients ( P = .001), highlighting high internal validity. The internal consistency was good (α = .796). The external consistency was adequate, with significant correlations between the test-retest Fr-ODQ-10. The Fr-ODQ-10 significantly decreased from baseline to 4 months post-treatment. A Fr-ODQ-10 score >7.5 was considered abnormal (sensitivity: 84.8%, specificity: 84.2%). The MCID of Fr-ODQ-10 was established at >3. Conclusion and Relevance The Fr-ODQ-10 is a valid and reliable clinical instrument, demonstrating correlation with the psychophysical olfactory assessment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".