SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Olfaction and Anxiety Are Differently Associated in Men and Women in Cognitive Physiological and Pathological Aging.

J Clin Med · 2023-03-17

DOI: 10.3390/jcm12062338PMID: 36983338

Open accessbrief-report; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundOlfaction impairment in aging is associated with increased anxiety. We explored this association in cognitively healthy controls (HCs), Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. Both olfaction and anxiety have sex differences, therefore we also investigated these variances.ObjectivesInvestigate the association of olfaction with anxiety in three distinct clinical categories of aging, exploring the potential role of sex.Methods117 subjects (29 HCs, 43 MCI, and 45 PD patients) were assessed for olfaction and anxiety. We used regression models to determine whether B-SIT predicted anxiety and whether sex impacted that relationship.ResultsLower olfaction was related to greater anxiety traits in all groups (HCs: p = 0.015; MCI: p = 0.001 and PD: p = 0.038), significantly differed by sex. In fact, in HCs, for every unit increase in B-SIT, anxiety traits decreased by 7.63 in men (p = 0.009) and 1.5 in women (p = 0.225). In MCI patients for every unit increase in B-SIT, anxiety traits decreased by 1.19 in men (p = 0.048) and 3.03 in women (p = 0.0036). Finally, in PD patients for every unit increase in B-SIT, anxiety traits decreased by 1.73 in men (p = 0.004) and 0.41 in women (p = 0.3632).DiscussionOlfaction and anxiety are correlated in all three distinct diagnostic categories, but differently in men and women.

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.