Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundHyposmia can develop with age and in neurodegenerative conditions, including Parkinson's disease (PD). The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) is a 40-item smell test widely used for assessing hyposmia. However, in a number of situations, such as identifying hyposmic individuals in large populations, shorter tests are preferable.MethodsWe assessed the ability of shorter UPSIT subsets to detect hyposmia in 891 healthy participants from the PREDICT-PD study. Shorter subsets included Versions A and B of the 4-item Pocket Smell Test (PST) and 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT). Using a data-driven approach, we evaluated screening performances of 23,231,378 combinations of 1-7 smell items from the full UPSIT to derive "winning" subsets, and validated findings separately in another 191 healthy individuals. We then compared discriminatory UPSIT smells between PREDICT-PD participants and 40 PD patients, and assessed the performance of "winning" subsets containing discriminatory smells in PD patients.ResultsPST Versions A and B achieved sensitivity/specificity of 76.8%/64.9% and 86.6%/45.9%, respectively, while BSIT Versions A and B achieved 83.1%/79.5% and 96.5%/51.8%. From the data-driven analysis, 2 "winning" 7-item subsets surpassed the screening performance of 12-item BSITs (validation sensitivity/specificity of 88.2%/85.4% and 100%/53.5%), while a "winning" 4-item subset had higher sensitivity than PST-A, -B, and even BSIT-A (validation sensitivity 91.2%). Interestingly, several discriminatory smells featured within "winning" subsets, and demonstrated high-screening performances for identifying hyposmic PD patients.ConclusionUsing abbreviated smell tests could provide a cost-effective means of large-scale hyposmia screening, allowing more targeted UPSIT administration in general and PD-related settings.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.