Gender differences in olfactory function in patients with Parkinson's disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Previous studies reported the presence of gender-related differences in motor and non motor symptoms in patients affected by Parkinson's disease (PD) (1, 2). However, gender-related differences in olfactory function are not clearly investigated. \nObjective: To assess the presence of gender-related differences in olfactory function among patients with PD compared to age and sex matched healthy controls. \nMethods: One hundred and sixty eight participants were enrolled (99 PD patients, 57 males and 42 females and 69 healthy controls, 31 males and 38 females). Olfactory function was evaluated with odor threshold, discrimination, identification and their sum TDI score by the Sniffin’ Sticks tests (3). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to assess cognitive impairment. Apathy was examined by the Starkstein Apathy Scale (SAS) and fatigue was evaluated by the Parkinson’s Disease Fatigue Scale (PFS). Data are presented as mean values ± standard error mean. \nResults: Male PD patients showed a significant impairment compared to female PD patients in \nodor discrimination (8.4 ± 0.420 vs 7.1 ± 0.408, p<0.05), odor identification (8.6 ± 0.454 vs 7 ± 0.420, p<0.05) and in TDI score (19.9 ± 0.920 vs 16.73 ± 0.919, p<0.05). As regards odor threshold, no significant differences were observed between males and females. Moreover, no gender related differences were observed in olfactory function among healthy controls. Multivariate linear regression analyses showed that apathy and gender were the most important predictors related to the impairment of olfactory function in PD patients. \nConclusions: A specific gender difference in olfactory dysfunctions among PD patients were observed only for odor discrimination, identification and TDI score. These findings highlighted the possible role of gender differences in the development of associated PD non motor symptoms. \n \n \n \nReferences \n1) Solla et al. J Neurol Sci. 2012. 323(1-2):33-9 \n2) Picillo et al. J Neurol. 2013. 260(11):2849-55 \n3) Hummel et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2007. 264(3):237–243.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".