SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Screening performances of an 8-item UPSIT Italian version in the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease.

Neurol Sci · 2022-11-19

DOI: 10.1007/s10072-022-06457-2PMID: 36401656

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Hyposmia is a common finding in Parkinson's disease (PD) and is usually tested through the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). The aim of our study is to provide a briefer version of the Italian-adapted UPSIT test, able to discriminate between PD patients and healthy subjects (HS). By means of several univariate and multivariate (machine-learning-based) statistical approaches, we selected 8 items by which we trained a partial-least-square discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) and a decision tree (DT) model: class predictions of both models performed better with the 8-item version when compared to the 40-item version. An area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve built with the selected 8 odors showed the best performance (sensitivity 86.8%, specificity 82%) in predicting the PD condition at a cut-off point of ≤ 6. These performances were higher than those previously calculated for the 40-item UPSIT test (sensitivity 82% and specificity 88.2 % with a cut-off point of ≤ 21). Qualitatively, our selection contains one odor (i.e., apple) which is Italian-specific, supporting the need for cultural adaptation of smell testing; on the other hand, some of the selected best discriminating odors are in common with existing brief smell test versions validated on PD patients of other cultures, supporting the view that disease-specific odor patterns may exist and deserve a further evaluation.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.