Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35837713›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of rhinology & allergy2022

Unsupervised Clustering of Olfactory Phenotypes.

Rodney J Schlosser, Judy R Dubno, Mark A Eckert, Andreana M Benitez, Matthew Gregoski, Viswanathan Ramakrishnan, Lois Matthews, Zachary M Soler

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of rhinology & allergy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Visual and bibliometric analysis of chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2024
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rodney J SchlosserDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.ORCID 0000-0001-6480-0275
Judy R DubnoDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.ORCID 0000-0003-2340-4721
Mark A EckertDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.ORCID 0000-0001-9286-7717
Andreana M BenitezDepartment of Neurology, 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Matthew GregoskiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Viswanathan RamakrishnanDepartment of Public Health Sciences, 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Lois MatthewsDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Zachary M SolerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Medical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

Olfactory Dysfunction in Aging AdultsR01DC019078 · NIDCD · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI SCHLOSSER, RODNEY JON · 2021 to 2025
$2.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC019078
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent clinical classifications of olfactory function are based primarily upon a percentage of correct answers in olfactory identification testing. This simple classification provides little insight into etiologies of olfactory loss, associated comorbidities, or impact on the quality of life (QOL).

methodsCommunity-based subjects underwent olfactory psychophysical testing using Sniffin Sticks to measure threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I). The cognitive screening was performed using Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE). Unsupervised clustering was performed based upon T, D, I, and MMSE. Post hoc differences in demographics, comorbidities, and QOL measures were assessed.

resultsClustering of 219 subjects, mean age 51 years (range 20-93 years) resulted in 4 unique clusters. Cluster 1 was the largest and predominantly younger normosmics. Cluster 2 had the worst olfaction with impairment in nearly all aspects of olfaction and decreased MMSE scores. This cluster had higher rates of smoking, heart disease, and cancer and had the worst olfactory-specific QOL. Cluster 3 had normal MMSE with relative preservation of D and I, but severely impaired T. This cluster had higher rates of smoking and heart disease with moderately impaired QOL. Cluster 4 was notable for the worst MMSE scores, but general preservation of D and I with moderate loss of T. This cluster had higher rates of Black subjects, diabetes, and viral/traumatic olfactory loss.

conclusionUnsupervised clustering based upon detailed olfactory testing and cognitive testing results in clinical phenotypes with unique risk factors and QOL impacts. These clusters may provide additional information regarding etiologies and subsequent therapies to treat olfactory loss.

Indexed as

Heart DiseasesOlfaction DisordersCluster AnalysisHumansPhenotypeQuality of LifeSmellcluster analysisolfactionphenotype

Identifiers

PMID35837713
PMCPMC10031609
OpenAlexW4285589459

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.