Covid-19 affects taste independent of taste-smell confusions: results from a combined chemosensory home test and online survey from a large global cohort.

People often confuse smell loss with taste loss, so it is unclear how much gustatory function is reduced in patients self-reporting taste loss. Our pre-registered cross-sectional study design included an online survey in 12 languages with instructions for self-administering chemosensory tests with 10 household items. Between June 2020 and March 2021, 10,953 individuals participated. Of these, 5,225 self-reported a respiratory illness and were grouped based on their reported COVID test results: COVID-positive (COVID+, N = 3,356), COVID-negative (COVID-, N = 602), and COVID unknown for those waiting for a test result (COVID?, N = 1,267). The participants who reported no respiratory illness were grouped by symptoms: sudden smell/taste changes (STC, N = 4,445), other symptoms excluding smell or taste changes (OthS, N = 832), and no symptoms (NoS, N = 416). Taste, smell, and oral irritation intensities and self-assessed abilities were rated on visual analog scales. Compared to the NoS group, COVID+ was associated with a 21% reduction in taste (95% confidence interval (CI): 15-28%), 47% in smell (95% CI: 37-56%), and 17% in oral irritation (95% CI: 10-25%) intensity. There were medium to strong correlations between perceived intensities and self-reported abilities (r = 0.84 for smell, r = 0.68 for taste, and r = 0.37 for oral irritation). Our study demonstrates that COVID-19-positive individuals report taste dysfunction when self-tested with stimuli that have little to none olfactory components. Assessing the smell and taste intensity of household items is a promising, cost-effective screening tool that complements self-reports and may help to disentangle taste loss from smell loss. However, it does not replace standardized validated psychophysical tests.

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

Dataset on assessing olfactory function in the residents of Central Russia using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test.

Data were acquired via sensory testing of olfactory function in 252 adult residents of Central Russia (18-87 years old), including groups from urban and rural areas. The 40-item North American version of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was used. The test alternatives were initially translated into Russian by the authors with minor adaptations. We followed the test procedure recommended by the manufacturer and introduced additional tasks. Familiarity with odor names and consistency with the pre-existing concepts for the test odor items were determined using multiple response questions. Intensity ratings for the UPSIT odorants were obtained using 4-point categorical scale for a subset of the participants. Demographic data and other relevant characteristics of the study population were collected using an adapted translation of the questionnaire included with the test. Descriptive statistics of the collected data are presented in this article. The dataset may be reused for evaluating the impact of various factors, such as cultural context, age, sex, environment, and smoking habits, on the perception of specific odorants as well as on general olfactory function (determined by the number of recognized test items). The data may find its application in the clinical practice of otolaryngologists and neurologists who work with the ethno-cultural group in Russia and all over the world. The dataset can also be used for development of new diagnostic tools for olfactory dysfunction.

Covid-19 affects taste independently of smell: results from a combined chemosensory home test and online survey from a global cohort (N=10,953).

People often confuse smell loss with taste loss, so it is unclear how much gustatory function is reduced in patients self-reporting taste loss. Our pre-registered cross-sectional study design included an online survey in 12 languages with instructions for self-administering chemosensory tests with ten household items. Between June 2020 and March 2021, 10,953 individuals participated. Of these, 3,356 self-reported a positive and 602 a negative COVID-19 diagnosis (COVID+ and COVID-, respectively); 1,267 were awaiting test results (COVID?). The rest reported no respiratory illness and were grouped by symptoms: sudden smell/taste changes (STC, N=4,445), other symptoms excluding smell or taste loss (OthS, N=832), and no symptoms (NoS, N=416). Taste, smell, and oral irritation intensities and self-assessed abilities were rated on visual analog scales. Compared to the NoS group, COVID+ was associated with a 21% reduction in taste (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 15-28%), 47% in smell (95%-CI: 37-56%), and 17% in oral irritation (95%-CI: 10-25%) intensity. In all groups, perceived intensity of smell (r=0.84), taste (r=0.68), and oral irritation (r=0.37) was correlated. Our findings suggest most reports of taste dysfunction with COVID-19 were genuine and not due to misinterpreting smell loss as taste loss (i.e., a classical taste-flavor confusion). Assessing smell and taste intensity of household items is a promising, cost-effective screening tool that complements self-reports and helps to disentangle taste loss from smell loss. However, it does not replace standardized validated psychophysical tests.

Olfactory perception of 5α-androst-16-en-3-one: Data obtained in the residents of central Russia.

This dataset describes olfactory perception of androstenone (5α-androst-16-en-3-one) in residents of central Russia (n=807, 9-84 years old). Based on previous studies, 3.13 × 10-3% androstenone was utilized for sensory testing. A modified two-alternative choice task with "no-difference" options was applied as an odor discrimination procedure. The participants rated the perceived odor intensity and pleasantness on 3-point categorical scales. The subsequent task was free odor identification. We used a survey to determine characteristics of our study population such as age, sex, ethnicity, olfactory abilities, smoking habits, respiratory tract diseases, perfume use, blood group. To examine sex differences in characteristics of participants, as well as in their perception of androstenone, we have applied one-way ANOVA for age variable and Chi-square tests for categorical variables. The dataset will be useful for assessing the impact of the aforementioned factors on the perception of volatile steroids. A wide range of researchers studying verbal descriptors of specific odors and cross-cultural differences in olfactory perception may reuse this dataset. Primarily, this dataset may benefit meat industry, as androstenone, which is perceived as an unpleasant odor by about a quarter of the population, significantly contributes to pork flavor.

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