ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Olfactory perceptual fingerprints of people with olfactory dysfunction and healthy controls.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Demographic and geographical determinants of human olfactory perception of 909 individuals inhabiting 16 regions.iScience · 2025Article
- Olfactory perceptual fingerprints of people with olfactory dysfunction and healthy controls.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: An olfactory perceptual fingerprint (OPF) defines one's olfactory perception using perceptual descriptor ratings (such as odor pleasantness, intensity) for a set of odors. OPFs have been shown to distinguish patients with COVID-related olfactory dysfunction (OD) and healthy controls with 86% accuracy. However, all participants rated the same odorants. With the aim to evaluate whether the OPFs are indeed odorant independent, previously published dataset by Lötsch et al. was reanalyzed. Furthermore, this independent dataset was used to check whether the OPFs separate patients with OD due to various causes from controls. Methods: The study included 104 controls and 42 patients, who were randomized into four odor sets with 10 odorants each. Odorants were presented using a computer-controlled olfactometer and evaluated on scales from 1 ( Results: Permutational multivariate analysis of variance showed that the odor set did not have a significant effect on the OPFs, confirming that the OPFs are indeed odorant independent. On the other hand, both diagnosis and age affected the OPFs ( Conclusion: OPFs are odorant independent. Patients perceived odors as less familiar, less intense, and less edible than controls. Other perceptual descriptors were much less important for the separation of patients and controls. Level of evidence: 3.
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.