Evaluation of olfactory function as a potential biomarker in patients with Mastocytosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mastocytosis is a clonal disease characterized by an accumulation of mastcells in various organs, such as skin, bones, lymph nodes, liver, spleen, peripheral and central nervous system, gastrointestinal and nose-pharyngeal tract. The serum tryptase, an enzyme produced almost exclusively by mastcells is considered as a biomarker. The serum concentration of tryptase can therefore be considered a quantitative sign and an indicator of activity of the organism's mast cells. \nThe aim of the study was first to investigate odor threshold (OT), odor discrimination (OD) and odor identification (OI) in mastocytosis patients (MP) compared to age matches healthy controls (HC), then to correlate olfactory function with, serum tryptase. \nMethod: Eighty subjects were enrolled in this study (40 patients with mastocytosis, 18 women and 22 men, mean age 47.9, SD 14.4 and 40 healthy controls, 16 women and 24 men 47.9, SD 14.7). OT, OD, OI and their sum TDI score were evaluated using the psychophysical Sniffin’ Sticks. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to assess cognitive ability. One way between groups Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) was carried out to assess the impact of olfactory function on the mastocytosis. \nResults: Among MP group, 10 (25%) reported normosmia, one patient functional anosmia and the remaining showed hyposmia. Our results indicated a statistical significant differences between the two groups (MP and HC) for the olfactory function and the MoCA [F(5,74)=504.7, p<0.0005, Wilks' Lambda =0.03, partial η2=0.972]. The analyses of each individual dependent variable, using Bonferroni adjusted alpha level showed significant differences between two groups for OT [F(1,78)=866.6, p<0.0005, partial η2=0.917], OD [F(1,78)=76.6, p<0.005, partial η2=0.495], for TDI [F(1,78)=379.6, p<0.005, partial η2=0.830] and for MoCA [F(1,78)=146.3, p<0.005, partial η2=0.652]. Instead, no statistical significant difference was found for OI [F(1,78)=0.62, p>0.05, partial η2=0.008]. Significant negative correlation was observed between the TDI versus serum tryptase (r=-0.398, p<0.05). \nConclusion: Our data suggest that olfactory dysfunction could represent a potential biomarker to be more extensively evaluated for an early diagnosis of Mastocytosis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".