ArticlePloS one2018
Latent toxoplasmosis and olfactory functions of Rh positive and Rh negative subjects.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toxoplasma infection and Rhesus blood group system: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Changes of cognitive functions and proinflammatory cytokines across the lifespan in latentBrain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2025Article
- Re-assessing host manipulation in Toxoplasma: the underexplored role of sexual transmission - evidence, mechanisms, implications.Folia parasitologica · 2025Review
- Thirty years of studying latent toxoplasmosis: behavioural, physiological, and health insights.Folia parasitologica · 2025Review
- ChronicLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effects of stress or infection on rat behavior show robust reversals due to environmental disturbance.F1000Research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsThe prevalence of toxoplasmosis is higher in schizophrenics than in the general population. It has been suggested that certain symptoms of schizophrenia, including changes in olfactory functions, are in fact symptoms of toxoplasmosis that can be easily detected in schizophrenics only due to the increased prevalence of toxoplasmosis in this population. Schizophrenics have impaired identification of odors and lower sensitivity of odor detection, however, no information about these parameters of non-schizophrenic Toxoplasma-infected subjects is available.
methodsHere we searched for differences in olfactory functions between 62 infected and 61 noninfected non-schizophrenic subjects using the case-controls experimental design.
resultsThe infected men scored better than the non-infected controls in the standard odor-identification test. The infected women rated all smells as more intensive while the infected men rated nearly all smells as less intensive. Infected women rated the pleasantness of the smell of the cat urine as higher than the non-infected women and the opposite was true for the men-in contrast, higher pleasantness of odor in infected men and lower in infected women were observed and described in the 2011 study. Toxoplasmosis, Rh, and toxoplasmosis-Rh interaction were not associated with the rated pleasantness of the smell of other stimuli. However, our sample contained only 17 Rh negative men and 30 Rh negative women. Therefore, all results concerning the main effects of Rh factor and the interaction with Rh factor must be considered only preliminary.
conclusionsOur results suggest that latent toxoplasmosis is associated with changes in the olfactory functions in humans; however, the observed changes differ from those observed in schizophrenics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.