Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4) (remove)
Keywords
- data science (3)
- patients (3)
- olfaction (2)
- Nutrition (1)
- Olfactory system (1)
- clinical research (1)
- diabetes mellitus (1)
- human olfaction (1)
- human subjects (1)
- machine learning (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Because it is associated with central nervous changes, and olfactory dysfunction has been reported with increased prevalence among persons with diabetes, this study addressed the question of whether the risk of developing diabetes in the next 10 years is reflected in olfactory symptoms. In a cross-sectional study, in 164 individuals seeking medical consulting for possible diabetes, olfactory function was evaluated using a standardized clinical test assessing olfactory threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification. Metabolomics parameters were assessed via blood concentrations. The individual diabetes risk was quantified according to the validated German version of the “FINDRISK” diabetes risk score. Machine learning algorithms trained with metabolomics patterns predicted low or high diabetes risk with a balanced accuracy of 63–75%. Similarly, olfactory subtest results predicted the olfactory dysfunction category with a balanced accuracy of 85–94%, occasionally reaching 100%. However, olfactory subtest results failed to improve the prediction of diabetes risk based on metabolomics data, and metabolomics data did not improve the prediction of the olfactory dysfunction category based on olfactory subtest results. Results of the present study suggest that olfactory function is not a useful predictor of diabetes.
Background: The categorization of individuals as normosmic, hyposmic, or anosmic from test results of odor threshold, discrimination, and identification may provide a limited view of the sense of smell. The purpose of this study was to expand the clinical diagnostic repertoire by including additional tests. Methods: A random cohort of n = 135 individuals (83 women and 52 men, aged 21 to 94 years) was tested for odor threshold, discrimination, and identification, plus a distance test, in which the odor of peanut butter is perceived, a sorting task of odor dilutions for phenylethyl alcohol and eugenol, a discrimination test for odorant enantiomers, a lateralization test with eucalyptol, a threshold assessment after 10 min of exposure to phenylethyl alcohol, and a questionnaire on the importance of olfaction. Unsupervised methods were used to detect structure in the olfaction-related data, followed by supervised feature selection methods from statistics and machine learning to identify relevant variables. Results: The structure in the olfaction-related data divided the cohort into two distinct clusters with n = 80 and 55 subjects. Odor threshold, discrimination, and identification did not play a relevant role for cluster assignment, which, on the other hand, depended on performance in the two odor dilution sorting tasks, from which cluster assignment was possible with a median 100-fold cross-validated balanced accuracy of 77–88%. Conclusions: The addition of an odor sorting task with the two proposed odor dilutions to the odor test battery expands the phenotype of olfaction and fits seamlessly into the sensory focus of standard test batteries.
Diminished sense of smell impairs the quality of life but olfactorily disabled people are hardly considered in measures of disability inclusion. We aimed to stratify perceptual characteristics and odors according to the extent to which they are perceived differently with reduced sense of smell, as a possible basis for creating olfactory experiences that are enjoyed in a similar way by subjects with normal or impaired olfactory function. In 146 subjects with normal or reduced olfactory function, perceptual characteristics (edibility, intensity, irritation, temperature, familiarity, hedonics, painfulness) were tested for four sets of 10 different odors each. Data were analyzed with (i) a projection based on principal component analysis and (ii) the training of a machine-learning algorithm in a 1000-fold cross-validated setting to distinguish between olfactory diagnosis based on odor property ratings. Both analytical approaches identified perceived intensity and familiarity with the odor as discriminating characteristics between olfactory diagnoses, while evoked pain sensation and perceived temperature were not discriminating, followed by edibility. Two disjoint sets of odors were identified, i.e., d = 4 “discriminating odors” with respect to olfactory diagnosis, including cis-3-hexenol, methyl salicylate, 1-butanol and cineole, and d = 7 “non-discriminating odors”, including benzyl acetate, heptanal, 4-ethyl-octanoic acid, methional, isobutyric acid, 4-decanolide and p-cresol. Different weightings of the perceptual properties of odors with normal or reduced sense of smell indicate possibilities to create sensory experiences such as food, meals or scents that by emphasizing trigeminal perceptions can be enjoyed by both normosmic and hyposmic individuals.
Olfactory self-assessments have been analyzed with often negative but also positive conclusions about their usefulness as a surrogate for sensory olfactory testing. Patients with nasal polyposis have been highlighted as a well-predisposed group for reliable self-assessment. In a prospective cohort of n = 156 nasal polyposis patients, olfactory threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification were tested using the “Sniffin’ Sticks” test battery, along with self-assessments of olfactory acuity on a numerical rating scale with seven named items or on a 10-point scale with only the extremes named. Apparent highly significant correlations in the complete cohort proved to reflect the group differences in olfactory diagnoses of anosmia (n = 65), hyposmia (n = 74), and normosmia (n = 17), more than the true correlations of self-ratings with olfactory test results, which were mostly very weak. The olfactory self-ratings correlated with a quality of life score, however, only weakly. By contrast, olfactory self-ratings proved as informative in assigning the categorical olfactory diagnosis. Using an olfactory diagnostic instrument, which consists of a mapping rule of two numerical rating scales of one’s olfactory function to the olfactory functional diagnosis based on the “Sniffin’ Sticks” clinical test battery, the diagnoses of anosmia, hyposmia, or normosmia could be derived from the self-ratings at a satisfactorily balanced accuracy of about 80%. It remains to be seen whether this approach of translating self-assessments into olfactory diagnoses of anosmia, hyposmia, and normosmia can be generalized to other clinical cohorts in which olfaction plays a role.