Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34768493›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Machine Learning Refutes Loss of Smell as a Risk Indicator of Diabetes Mellitus.

Jörn Lötsch, Antje Hähner, Peter E H Schwarz, Sergey Tselmin, Thomas Hummel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 48% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Olfactory function in diabetes mellitus.Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2024
    Review
  4. In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jörn LötschInstitute of Clinical Pharmacology, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5818-6958
Antje HähnerSmell & Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Peter E H SchwarzDepartment of Internal Medicine III, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Sergey TselminDepartment of Internal Medicine III, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Thomas HummelSmell & Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9713-0183
Technische Universität Dresden · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because it is associated with central nervous changes, and olfactory dysfunction has been reported with increased prevalence among persons with diabetes, this study addressed the question of whether the risk of developing diabetes in the next 10 years is reflected in olfactory symptoms. In a cross-sectional study, in 164 individuals seeking medical consulting for possible diabetes, olfactory function was evaluated using a standardized clinical test assessing olfactory threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification. Metabolomics parameters were assessed via blood concentrations. The individual diabetes risk was quantified according to the validated German version of the "FINDRISK" diabetes risk score. Machine learning algorithms trained with metabolomics patterns predicted low or high diabetes risk with a balanced accuracy of 63-75%. Similarly, olfactory subtest results predicted the olfactory dysfunction category with a balanced accuracy of 85-94%, occasionally reaching 100%. However, olfactory subtest results failed to improve the prediction of diabetes risk based on metabolomics data, and metabolomics data did not improve the prediction of the olfactory dysfunction category based on olfactory subtest results. Results of the present study suggest that olfactory function is not a useful predictor of diabetes.

Indexed as

data sciencediabetes mellitushuman olfactionmachine-learningpatients

Identifiers

PMID34768493
PMCPMC8584618
OpenAlexW3209552142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.