Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19965900›Full record

ArticleChemical senses2010

Making scents: dynamic olfactometry for threshold measurement.

Roland Schmidt, William S Cain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemical senses, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Roland SchmidtChemosensory Perception Laboratory, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0957, USA.
William S Cain

Funding

Human Sensory Irritation From Volitile Organic CompoundsR01DC005602 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI CAIN, WILLIAM S · 2003 to 2006
$1.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC005602NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC05602
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data on human odor thresholds show disparities huge enough to marginalize olfactory psychophysics and delegitimize importation of its data into other areas. Variation of orders of magnitude from study to study, much of it systematic, threatens meaningful comparisons with animal species, comparison between in vivo with in vitro studies, the search for molecular determinants of potency, and use of olfactory information for environmental or public health policy. On the premise that good experimental results will flow from use of good tools, this report describes a vapor delivery system and its peripherals that instantiate good tools. The vapor delivery device 8 (VDD8) provides flexibility in range of delivered concentrations, offers definable stability of delivery, accommodates solvent-free delivery below a part per trillion, gives a realistic interface with subjects, has accessible and replaceable components, and adapts to a variety of psychophysical methodologies. The device serves most often for measurement of absolute sensitivity, where its design encourages collection of thousands of judgments per day from subjects tested simultaneously. The results have shown humans to be more sensitive and less variable than has previous testing. The VDD8 can also serve for measurement of differential sensitivity, discrimination of quality, and perception of mixtures and masking. The exposition seeks to transmit general lessons while it proffers some specifics of design to reproduce features of the device in a new or existing system. The principles can apply to devices for animal testing.

Indexed as

OdorantsHumansPsychophysicsSmellVolatile Organic CompoundsVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID19965900
PMCPMC2805809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.