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

PiLiMoT: A Modified Combination of LoLiMoT and PLN Learning Algorithms for Local Linear Neurofuzzy Modeling

Locally linear model tree (LoLiMoT) and piecewise linear network (PLN) learning algorithms are two approaches in local linear neurofuzzy modeling. While both methods belong to the class of growing tree learning algorithms, they use different logics. PLN learning relies on training data, it needs rich training data set and no division test, so it is much faster than LoLiMoT, but it may create adjacent neurons that may lead to singularity in regression matrix. On the other hand, LoLiMoT almost always leads to acceptable output error, but it often needs more rules. In this paper, to exploit the complimentary performance of both algorithms piecewise linear model tree (PiLiMoT) learning algorithm is introduced. In essence, PiLiMoT is a combination of LoLiMoT and PLN learning. The initially proposed algorithm is improved by adding the ability to merge previously divided local linear models, and utilizing a simulated annealing stochastic decision process to select a local model for splitting. Comparing to LoLiMoT and PLN learning, our proposed improved learning algorithm shows the ability to construct models with less number of rules at comparable modeling errors. Algorithms are compared through a case study of nonlinear function approximation. Obtained results demonstrate the advantages of combined modified method

An information-based approach to handle various types of uncertainty in fuzzy bodies of evidence.

Fuzzy evidence theory, or fuzzy Dempster-Shafer Theory captures all three types of uncertainty, i.e. fuzziness, non-specificity, and conflict, which are usually contained in a piece of information within one framework. Therefore, it is known as one of the most promising approaches for practical applications. Quantifying the difference between two fuzzy bodies of evidence becomes important when this framework is used in applications. This work is motivated by the fact that while dissimilarity measures have been surveyed in the fields of evidence theory and fuzzy set theory, no comprehensive survey is yet available for fuzzy evidence theory. We proposed a modification to a set of the most discriminative dissimilarity measures (smDDM)-as the minimum set of dissimilarity with the maximal power of discrimination in evidence theory- to handle all types of uncertainty in fuzzy evidence theory. The generalized smDDM (FsmDDM) together with the one previously introduced as fuzzy measures make up a set of measures that is comprehensive enough to collectively address all aspects of information conveyed by the fuzzy bodies of evidence. Experimental results are presented to validate the method and to show the efficiency of the proposed method

Neuropsychiatric manifestations of COVID-19 can be clustered in three distinct symptom categories

Several studies have reported clinical manifestations of the new coronavirus disease. However, few studies have systematically evaluated the neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19. We reviewed the medical records of 201 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (52 outpatients and 149 inpatients) that were treated in a large referral center in Tehran, Iran from March 2019 to May 2020. We used clustering approach to categorize clinical symptoms. One hundred and fifty-one patients showed at least one neuropsychiatric symptom. Limb force reductions, headache followed by anosmia, hypogeusia were among the most common neuropsychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Hierarchical clustering analysis showed that neuropsychiatric symptoms group together in three distinct groups: anosmia and hypogeusia; dizziness, headache, and limb force reduction; photophobia, mental state change, hallucination, vision and speech problem, seizure, stroke, and balance disturbance. Three non-neuropsychiatric cluster of symptoms included diarrhea and nausea; cough and dyspnea; and fever and weakness. Neuropsychiatric presentations are very prevalent and heterogeneous in patients with coronavirus 2 infection and these heterogeneous presentations may be originating from different underlying mechanisms. Anosmia and hypogeusia seem to be distinct from more general constitutional-like and more specific neuropsychiatric symptoms. Skeletal muscular manifestations might be a constitutional or a neuropsychiatric symptom

Limits on using the clock drawing test as a measure to evaluate patients with neurological disorders

Abstract Background The Clock Drawing Test (CDT) is used as a quick-to-conduct test for the diagnosis of dementia and a screening tool for cognitive impairments in neurological disorders. However, the association between the pattern of CDT impairments and the location of brain lesions has been controversial. We examined whether there is an association between the CDT scores and the location of brain lesions using the two available scoring systems. Method One hundred five patients with brain lesions identified by CT scanning were recruited for this study. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) battery including the CDT were administered to all partcipants. To score the CDT, we used a qualitative scoring system devised by Rouleau et al. (1992). For the quantitative scoring system, we adapted the algorithm method used by Mendes-Santos et al. (2015) based on an earlier study by Sunderland et al. (1989). For analyses, a machine learning algorithm was used. Results Remarkably, 30% of the patients were not detected by the CDT. Quantitative and qualitative errors were categorized into different clusters. The classification algorithm did not differentiate the patients with traumatic brain injury ‘TBI’ from non-TBI, or the laterality of the lesion. In addition, the classification accuracy for identifying patients with specific lobe lesions was low, except for the parietal lobe with an accuracy of 63%. Conclusion The CDT is not an accurate tool for detecting focal brain lesions. While the CDT still is beneficial for use with patients suspected of having a neurodegenerative disorder, it should be cautiously used with patients with focal neurological disorders

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