ReviewNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2025
Olfactory testing in infants with perinatal asphyxia: Enhancing encephalopathy risk stratification for future health outcomes.
Review in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-pandemic resurgence and collapse ofFrontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Utilizing multivariate pattern analysis to uncover the neurobiological underpinnings of communication disorders in children with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy: insights from morphological and structural connectivity changes.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Targeting PERP promotes anti-tumor immunity in HNSCC by regulating tumor immune microenvironment and metabolic homeostasis.Molecular cancer · 2025Article
- Parahydrogen-Hyperpolarized Propane-The journal of physical chemistry. A · 2025Article
- Congenital cytomegalovirus retinitis of prematurity: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- CRP and D-dimer for risk stratification of cerebral infarction in children withFrontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Perinatal asphyxia (PA) is a leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality, often resulting in long-term neurodevelopmental challenges. Despite advancements in perinatal care, predicting long-term outcomes remains difficult. Early diagnosis is essential for timely interventions to reduce brain injury, with tools such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging, brain ultrasound, and emerging biomarkers playing a possible key role. Olfaction, one of the earliest senses to develop, may provide valuable insights into long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes following PA due to its intricate neural connections with regions responsible for memory, emotion, and homeostasis. Newborns demonstrate early olfactory abilities, such as recognizing maternal odors, which are vital for bonding, feeding, and emotional regulation. These responses are processed by a network of brain regions, including the olfactory bulb (OB), piriform cortex, amygdala, and orbitofrontal cortex. Hypoxic injury to these regions, particularly the OB, may disrupt olfactory processing in infants with PA, potentially affecting their cognitive and social development. Investigating the relationship between olfactory system development and perinatal brain injury could lead to innovative diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Further research, including clinical and animal studies, is necessary to fully explore the potential of olfactory assessments in predicting outcomes after PA. This educational review explores and discusses the potential of olfaction as a predictor of long-term outcomes and a tool for risk stratification following PA, opening new pathways for interventions and improved care.
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.