ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2025
Detection of odorants in odour mixtures among healthy people and patients with olfactory dysfunction.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2025. 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.
- Sparse input representations explain odor discrimination in complex, concentration-varying mixtures.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Detection of odorants in odour mixtures among healthy people and patients with olfactory dysfunction.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Target odorant detection in mixtures has been shown to become more difficult as the number of background odorants increases and falls below chance level in mixtures with 16 components. Our aim was to investigate target odorant detection in mixtures among healthy people and compare it between dysosmic patients and age- and gender-matched controls. Participants underwent extensive olfactory testing and performed two target odorant detection tasks. Eugenol ('clove') and phenylethanol (PEA, 'rose') were target odorants for all participants, whereas a third target was randomised. For each target odorant in task one (task two), there were four steps. Mixtures contained two (three) odorants in the first step and up to seven (eight) odorants in the fourth step. In each step, participants were asked to choose the sample with the target odorant from the three (two) jars presented. The study included 90 healthy people and 40 patients. As expected, probability of successful target odorant detection decreased as the number of odorants in the mixture increased. However, even when there were seven (eight) odorants in the mixture, around 50% (50%) of healthy people detected Eugenol and around 30% (40%) detected PEA. Furthermore, both distributions of successful target odorant detection differed from the expected binominal distribution of chance (p < 0.001). Patients performed worse at detecting Eugenol or PEA at each step than controls. Furthermore, there were significant positive correlations between task scores and olfactory function. In conclusion, target odorant detection is influenced by the target odorant, number of background odorants, and individual olfactory function.
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.