Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42328463›Full record

ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2026

Olfactory ERP-based classification of anosmia and normosmia using machine learning.

Kwangsu Kim, Thomas Hummel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Kwangsu KimSmell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Thomas HummelSmell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether electroencephalogram (EEG) data can be used to classify normosmia and anosmia using machine learning approaches and to examine how classification performance varies across single and combined chemical stimulation conditions. Methods: EEG signals were recorded from 66 participants (26 normosmic and 40 anosmic) during olfactory stimulation with phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA), hydrogen sulfide (H₂S), and carbon dioxide (CO₂), presented to the left and right nostrils. EEG data were averaged for each condition, resulting in six chemosensory event-related potential (CSERP) datasets per participant. Three machine learning models-support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and convolutional neural network (CNN)-were used to classify normosmia and anosmia. Results: Among all single and combined odor conditions, the combination of PEA_Right + H₂S_Left + H₂S_Right achieved the highest performance (ACC = 86.37%, F1 = 0.88, AUC = 0.85). CNN generally outperformed SVM and RF across most conditions. H₂S stimulation consistently provided strong discriminative power, particularly under left-sided presentation. Conclusion: Machine learning applied to EEG-based CSERPs can effectively distinguish olfactory dysfunction, demonstrating the feasibility of this approach for objective evaluation of olfactory processing. Significance: These findings suggest that EEG-based machine learning can serve as an objective framework for assessing olfactory function and may contribute to future development of data-driven diagnostic strategies for smell disorders.

Indexed as

AnosmiaEEGEvent-related potentialMachine learningOlfactory dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID42328463
PMCPMC13276535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.