ArticleNutrients2019
Estimation of Olfactory Sensitivity Using a Bayesian Adaptive Method.
Article in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Unmet Need of Olfactory Testing in Inflammatory Disorders of the Upper Airways-An EAACI Position Paper.Allergy · 2026Review
- Comparison of techniques for the evaluation of taste sensitivity.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Perceiving inter-leg speed differences while walking on a split-belt treadmill.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Association between Genetic Variation in theNutrients · 2023Article
- The Adaptive Olfactory Measure of Threshold (ArOMa-T): A rapid test of olfactory function.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- The Adaptive Olfactory Measure of Threshold (ArOMa-T): a rapid test of olfactory function.Chemical senses · 2022Article
- Taste, Nutrition, and Health.Nutrients · 2020Article
- The effect of odor enrichment on olfactory acuity: Olfactometric testing in mice using two mirror-molecular pairs.PloS one · 2020Article
- Repeatability of Taste Recognition Threshold Measurements withNutrients · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to smell is crucial for most species as it enables the detection of environmental threats like smoke, fosters social interactions, and contributes to the sensory evaluation of food and eating behavior. The high prevalence of smell disturbances throughout the life span calls for a continuous effort to improve tools for quick and reliable assessment of olfactory function. Odor-dispensing pens, called Sniffin' Sticks, are an established method to deliver olfactory stimuli during diagnostic evaluation. We tested the suitability of a Bayesian adaptive algorithm (QUEST) to estimate olfactory sensitivity using Sniffin' Sticks by comparing QUEST sensitivity thresholds with those obtained using a procedure based on an established standard staircase protocol. Thresholds were measured twice with both procedures in two sessions (Test and Retest). Overall, both procedures exhibited considerable overlap, with QUEST displaying slightly higher test-retest correlations, less variability between measurements, and reduced testing duration. Notably, participants were more frequently presented with the highest concentration during QUEST, which may foster adaptation and habituation effects. We conclude that further research is required to better understand and optimize the procedure for assessment of olfactory performance.
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.