Search

Objective: To compare, using state‐of‐the‐art psychophysical tests, the olfactory function of patients complaining and not complaining of olfactory hypersensitivity. Study Design: Retrospective cross‐sectional. Setting: The Smell and Taste Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Methods: University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) scores were obtained from 148 patients complaining of hyperosmia and 494 patients with no such complaints; detection threshold test scores were obtained from 77 and 483 patients of these respective groups. The effects of subject group, age, and sex on the test scores were assessed using analyses of variance. Categorical variables were evaluated by χ2. Responses to items within a detailed intake questionnaire, for example, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI‐II), were also evaluated. Results: Unexpectedly, those complaining of hyperosmia had lower olfactory test scores than those with no such complaints (respective UPSIT means [95% confidence interval [CIs]] = 27.86 (26.85, 28.87) and 32.19 (31.67, 32.71); P <.001; respective threshold means (log vol/vol) = −4.49 (−4.89, −4.09) and −5.22 (−5.36, −5.06); P <.001). Remarkably, 70.95% of the self‐identified hyperosmics exhibited mild to severe microsmia. The hyposmia complainers also exhibited elevated BDI scores (11.02 [9.53, 12.51] vs 7.58 [6.80, 8.34]). Conclusion: When objectively tested, many patients who complain of hypersensitivity to odors are actually less sensitive to them. The basis of this phenomenon is unclear. It could reflect the presence of emotionally disturbing altered smell sensations, or one or more comorbidities, such as hypochondria or osmophobia. These findings point to the importance of objective testing of persons with complaints of chemosensory dysfunction and reiterate the inaccuracy of self‐reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sensory functions of organs of the head and neck allow humans to interact with the environment and establish social bonds. With aging, smell, taste, vision, and hearing decline. Evidence suggests that accelerated impairment in sensory abilities can reflect a shift from healthy to pathological aging, including the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurological disorders. While the drivers of early sensory alteration in AD are not elucidated, insults such as trauma and infections can affect sensory function. Herein, we review the involvement of the major head and neck sensory systems in AD, with emphasis on microbes exploiting sensory pathways to enter the brain (the "gateway" hypothesis) and the potential feedback loop by which sensory function may be impacted by central nervous system infection. We emphasize detection of sensory changes as first-line surveillance in senior adults to identify and remove potential insults, like microbial infections, that could precipitate brain pathology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This study provides normative data useful for interpreting scores from the Pocket Smell Test® (PST®), a brief “scratch & sniff” neuropsychological olfactory screening test comprised of 8 items from the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT®). We combined 3,485 PST® scores from the 2013 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) of persons 40 years of age and older with equivalent PST® items extracted from an UPSIT® database of 3,900 persons ranging in age from 5 to 99 years. Decade-related age- and gender-adjusted percentile normative data were established across the entire age spectrum. Cut-points for defining clinically useful categories of anosmia, probable microsmia, and normosmia were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. An age-related decline in test scores was evident for both sexes after the age of 40 years, with women outperforming men. Based on the ROC analyses, subjects scoring 3 or less (AUC = 0.81) defines anosmia. Regardless of sex, a score of 7 or 8 on the N-PST® signifies normal function (AUC of 0.71). Probable microsmia is classified as scores extending from 3 to 6. These data provide an accurate means for interpreting PST® scores within a number of clinical and applied settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Considerable evidence suggests that smell dysfunction is common in coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19). Unfortunately, extant data on prevalence and reversibility over time are highly variable, coming mainly from self‐report surveys prone to multiple biases. Thus, validated psychophysical olfactory testing is sorely needed to establish such parameters. Methods: One hundred severe acute respiratory syndrome‒coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2)‐positive patients were administered the 40‐item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) in the hospital near the end of the acute phase of the disease. Eighty‐two were retested 1 or 4 weeks later at home. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and mixed‐effect regression models. Results: Initial UPSIT scores were indicative of severe microsmia, with 96% exhibiting measurable dysfunction; 18% were anosmic. The scores improved upon retest (initial test: mean, 21.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20.84‐23.09; retest: mean, 31.13; 95% CI, 30.16‐32.10; p < 0.0001); no patient remained anosmic. After 5 weeks from COVID‐19 symptom onset, the test scores of 63% of the retested patients were normal. However, the mean UPSIT score at that time continued to remain below that of age‐ and sex‐matched healthy controls (p < 0.001). Such scores were related to time since symptom onset, sex, and age. Conclusion: Smell loss was extremely common in the acute phase of a cohort of 100 COVID‐19 patients when objectively measured. About one third of cases continued to exhibit dysfunction 6 to 8 weeks after symptom onset. These findings have direct implications for the use of olfactory testing in identifying SARS‐CoV‐2 carriers and for counseling such individuals with regard to their smell dysfunction and its reversibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), is responsible for the largest pandemic since the 1918 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 influenza outbreak. The symptoms presently recognized by the World Health Organization are cough, fever, tiredness, and difficulty breathing. Patient‐reported smell and taste loss has been associated with COVID‐19 infection, yet no empirical olfactory testing on a cohort of COVID‐19 patients has been performed. Methods: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), a well‐validated 40‐odorant test, was administered to 60 confirmed COVID‐19 inpatients and 60 age‐ and sex‐matched controls to assess the magnitude and frequency of their olfactory dysfunction. A mixed effects analysis of variance determined whether meaningful differences in test scores existed between the 2 groups and if the test scores were differentially influenced by sex. Results: Fifty‐nine (98%) of the 60 patients exhibited some smell dysfunction (mean [95% CI] UPSIT score: 20.98 [19.47, 22.48]; controls: 34.10 [33.31, 34.88]; p < 0.0001). Thirty‐five of the 60 patients (58%) were either anosmic (15/60; 25%) or severely microsmic (20/60; 33%); 16 exhibited moderate microsmia (16/60; 27%), 8 mild microsmia (8/60; 13%), and 1 normosmia (1/60; 2%). Deficits were evident for all 40 UPSIT odorants. No meaningful relationships between the test scores and sex, disease severity, or comorbidities were found. Conclusion: Quantitative smell testing demonstrates that decreased smell function, but not always anosmia, is a major marker for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and suggests the possibility that smell testing may help, in some cases, to identify COVID‐19 patients in need of early treatment or quarantine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personalization of different aspects of architectural designs is one of the most novel issues in the modern world. The present study aimed to predict the association between personality traits and architectural preferences. A total of 352 participants with architectural (experts) and nonarchitectural (nonexperts) education were asked to complete a demographic profile and the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory. They were then asked to choose their preferred images, which were previously rated based on three aesthetic variables, that is, color-contrast, abstractness-concreteness, and spatial openness, in a series of two-alternative forced-choice questions. By using a random forest classifier, an accuracy of 73 to 84% was achieved for the variables. Due to the complexity of rules in the random forest model, data were explored for more interpretable rules, and a rule-based classifier (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis software) was used. Based on the findings, introverts had the opposite behavior compared to the general population; they preferred images of enclosed spaces and with high color contrast. They also preferred popular architectural styles to high-style designs. Otherwise, the preference for greater spatial openness was common in both expert and nonexpert groups, although it was more noticeable in female extroverts. Nonexperts with high levels of openness to experience were mostly attracted to abstract images. Experts and nonexperts showed similar preferences in terms of color contrast and spatial openness, while there was a significant difference between the two groups regarding their preferred abstract and concrete concepts. In conclusion, educational background and personality traits could influence aesthetic preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study provides normative data useful for interpreting scores from the Pocket Smell Test ® (PST ® ), a brief "scratch & sniff" neuropsychological olfactory screening test comprised of 8 items from the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT ® ). We combined 3,485 PST ® scores from the 2013 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) of persons 40 years of age and older with equivalent PST ® items extracted from an UPSIT ® database of 3,900 persons ranging in age from 5 to 99 years. Decade-related age- and gender-adjusted percentile normative data were established across the entire age spectrum. Cut-points for defining clinically useful categories of anosmia, probable microsmia, and normosmia were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. An age-related decline in test scores was evident for both sexes after the age of 40 years, with women outperforming men. Based on the ROC analyses, subjects scoring 3 or less (AUC = 0.81) defines anosmia. Regardless of sex, a score of 7 or 8 on the N-PST ® signifies normal function (AUC of 0.71). Probable microsmia is classified as scores extending from 3 to 6. These data provide an accurate means for interpreting PST ® scores within a number of clinical and applied settings.

Background: Neurological COVID-19 disease has been reported widely, but published studies often lack information on neurological outcomes and prognostic risk factors. We aimed to describe the spectrum of neurological disease in hospitalised COVID-19 patients; characterise clinical outcomes; and investigate factors associated with a poor outcome., Methods: We conducted an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of hospitalised patients with neurological COVID-19 disease, using standard case definitions. We invited authors of studies from the first pandemic wave, plus clinicians in the Global COVID-Neuro Network with unpublished data, to contribute. We analysed features associated with poor outcome (moderate to severe disability or death, 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin Scale) using multivariable models., Results: We included 83 studies (31 unpublished) providing IPD for 1979 patients with COVID-19 and acute new-onset neurological disease. Encephalopathy (978 [49%] patients) and cerebrovascular events (506 [26%]) were the most common diagnoses. Respiratory and systemic symptoms preceded neurological features in 93% of patients; one third developed neurological disease after hospital admission. A poor outcome was more common in patients with cerebrovascular events (76% [95% CI 67-82]), than encephalopathy (54% [42-65]). Intensive care use was high (38% [35-41]) overall, and also greater in the cerebrovascular patients. In the cerebrovascular, but not encephalopathic patients, risk factors for poor outcome included breathlessness on admission and elevated D-dimer. Overall, 30-day mortality was 30% [27-32]. The hazard of death was comparatively lower for patients in the WHO European region., Interpretation: Neurological COVID-19 disease poses a considerable burden in terms of disease outcomes and use of hospital resources from prolonged intensive care and inpatient admission; preliminary data suggest these may differ according to WHO regions and country income levels. The different risk factors for encephalopathy and stroke suggest different disease mechanisms which may be amenable to intervention, especially in those who develop neurological symptoms after hospital admission., Competing Interests: TS is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Committee of a study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of a candidate Ebola Vaccine in children - the GSK3390107A (ChAd3 EBO-Z) vaccine; he is a panel member of Covid-19 Vaccine Benefit Risk Expert Working Group for the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (UK); he is a member of COVID-19 Therapeutics Advisory Panel for the UK Department of Health & Social Care; he is the Chair/Co-Chair of the COVID-19 Rapid Response and Rolling Funding Initiatives, which supported the development of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine. In addition, Dr. Solomon has a diagnostic test for bacterial meningitis, based on a blood test, filed for patent pending.

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19-; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: -82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19-: -59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)