Olfactory Nomenclature: An Orchestrated Effort to Clarify Terms and Definitions of Dysosmia, Anosmia, Hyposmia, Normosmia, Hyperosmia, Olfactory Intolerance, Parosmia, and Phantosmia/Olfactory Hallucination

BACKGROUND: Definitions are essential for effective communication and discourse, particularly in science. They allow the shared understanding of a thought or idea, generalization of knowledge, and comparison across scientific investigation. The current terms describing olfactory dysfunction are vague and overlapping. SUMMARY: As a group of clinical olfactory researchers, we propose the standardization of the terms "dysosmia," "anosmia," "hyposmia," "normosmia," "hyperosmia," "olfactory intolerance," "parosmia," and "phantosmia" (or "olfactory hallucination") in olfaction-related communication, with specific definitions in this text. KEY MESSAGES: The words included in this paper were determined as those which are most frequently used in the context of olfactory function and dysfunction, in both clinical and research settings. Despite widespread use in publications, however, there still exists some disagreement in the literature regarding the definitions of terms related to olfaction. Multiple overlapping and imprecise terms that are currently in use are confusing and hinder clarity and universal understanding of these concepts. There is a pressing need to have a unified agreement on the definitions of these olfactory terms by researchers working in the field of chemosensory sciences. With the increased interest in olfaction, precise use of these terms will improve the ability to integrate and advance knowledge in this field

Olfactory nomenclature: An orchestrated effort to clarify terms and definitions of dysosmia, anosmia, hyposmia, normosmia, hyperosmia, olfactory intolerance, parosmia, and phantosmia/olfactory hallucination

Background: Definitions are essential for effective communication and discourse, particularly in science. They allow the shared understanding of a thought or idea, generalization of knowledge, and comparison across scientific investigation. The current terms describing olfactory dysfunction are vague and overlapping. Summary: As a group of clinical olfactory researchers, we propose the standardization of the terms “dysosmia,” “anosmia,” “hyposmia,” “normosmia,” “hyperosmia,” “olfactory intolerance,” “parosmia,” and “phantosmia” (or “olfactory hallucination”) in olfaction-related communication, with specific definitions in this text. Key Messages: The words included in this paper were determined as those which are most frequently used in the context of olfactory function and dysfunction, in both clinical and research settings. Despite widespread use in publications, however, there still exists some disagreement in the literature regarding the definitions of terms related to olfaction. Multiple overlapping and imprecise terms that are currently in use are confusing and hinder clarity and universal understanding of these concepts. There is a pressing need to have a unified agreement on the definitions of these olfactory terms by researchers working in the field of chemosensory sciences. With the increased interest in olfaction, precise use of these terms will improve the ability to integrate and advance knowledge in this field

Recent smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 among individuals with recent respiratory symptoms

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<10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable

More Than Smell—COVID-19 Is Associated With Severe Impairment of Smell, Taste, and Chemesthesis

Correction: Chemical Senses, Volume 46, 2021, bjab050, https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjab050 Published: 08 December 2021Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change +/- 100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 +/- 28.7, mean +/- standard deviation), taste (-69.0 +/- 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 +/- 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis.The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.Peer reviewe

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in COVID-19. First reports of Latin-American ethnic patients

SCOPUS: no.jDecretOANoAutActifinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Corrigendum to: More than smell. COVID-19 is associated with severe impairment of smell, taste, and chemesthesis

International audienc

Corrigendum to::More Than Smell-COVID-19 Is Associated with Severe Impairment of Smell, Taste, and Chemesthesis (Chemical Senses (2020) DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjaa041)

This is a correction notice for article bjaa041 (DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjaa041), published 20 June 2020. An incorrect version of the caption to Figure 5 was mistakenly included in the published paper. An updated version is given below. Neither the data nor the paper's conclusions were affected by this correction. The authors sincerely apologize for the error. (A) Correlations between the 3 principal components with respect to changes in 3 chemosensory modalities (i.e., taste, smell, and chemesthesis). Shades of gray indicate positive correlation, whereas shades of red indicate negative correlations. White denotes no correlation. (B) Clusters of participants identified by k-means clustering. The scatterplot shows each participant's loading on dimension 1 (degree of smell and taste loss, PC1 on x-Axis) and dimension 2 (degree of chemesthesis loss, PC2 on y-Axis). Based on the centroid of each cluster, participants in cluster 1 (blue, N = 1767; top left) are generally characterized by significant smell, taste and chemesthesis loss. Participants in cluster 2 (orange, N = 1724; bottom center) are generally characterized by ratings that reflect smell/taste loss with preserved chemesthesis. Loadings for participants in cluster 3 (green, N = 548; right side) are generally characterized by reduced smell and taste loss, and preserved chemesthesis

The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study

Background: COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19. Methods: This preregistered, cross-sectional study used 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 singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Results: 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 single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset. Conclusions: As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10<OR<4), especially when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable