ArticleChinese medicine2026
A clinical and mechanistic study on traditional Chinese medicine herbs used in olfactory training.
Article in Chinese medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlfactory dysfunction (OD) is a prevalent condition with limited treatment options, severely impairing patients' quality of life. Olfactory training (OT) using conventional odorants provides limited benefit. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) herbs with complex odors may offer novel OT agents, but their mechanism and clinical value remain unclear.
methodsIn a prospective, open-label, parallel-controlled clinical observation, 73 OD patients (TCM-OT group: n = 36; control group: n = 37) received either 3-month TCM-based OT (6 herbs) or mometasone furoate nasal spray. Olfactory function was assessed by olfactory identification test (OIT), visual analog scale (VAS), and quality-of-life questionnaire (QOD). Volatile profiles of the six herbs were characterized by GC-MS. We then performed systematic functional screening of 16 major herb odorants and 4 common chemical odorants (eugenol, citronellal, phenylethyl alcohol, eucalyptol) against ~ 400 human olfactory receptors (hORs) using luciferase assays. Results were combined with public database entries (M2OR, OlfactionBase) to compare OR activation patterns. Molecular docking and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were performed for (-)-Borneol, a representative active component, against its responsive ORs.
resultsTCM-OT significantly improved the primary outcome (OIT) compared with control (mean improvement 11.31 ± 6.30 vs. 6.22 ± 4.99, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.150). Secondary outcomes (VAS and QOD) showed trends favoring TCM-OT but did not reach statistical significance after Bonferroni correction. Greater benefit was observed in younger patients. Herb odorants displayed higher chemical diversity than chemical odorants. Functional screening identified 34 odorant-OR activation pairs for herb odorants (23 novel) and 11 pairs for chemical odorants (10 novel). Integrated analysis revealed that herb odorants collectively activated all 17 hOR families, whereas chemical odorants engaged only 8 families. Molecular simulations further elucidated the multi-receptor recognition mechanism of (-)-Borneol.
conclusionsTCM-OT is a promising multi-target approach for OD. The broad activation of all OR families by herb odorants - contrasting with the limited engagement of conventional chemical odorants - provides a molecular rationale for the efficacy of TCM-OT and guidance for the selection of olfactory agents used in OT.
trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered with the Eye Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (YKEC-KT-2025-057-P002).
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.