Development of a Korean Culture-Friendly Olfactory Function Test and Optimization of a Diagnostic Cutoff Value

Overview

Journal Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol

Date 2020 Jul 17

PMID 32668827

Citations 11

Authors

Jong-Gyun Ha

Jinwon Kim

Jae Sung Nam

Jeong Jin Park

Hyung-Ju Cho

Joo-Heon Yoon

Chang-Hoon Kim

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Cultural familiarity and safety must be considered when assessing olfactory ability. The YSK olfactory function (YOF) test is a new olfactory function test using culturally familiar odorants to Koreans.

Methods: The YOF test comprises three subtests for threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I). The identification test included eight universal and four Korean culture-friendly odorants, which were selected considering eight major functional groups. Data were obtained from 1,127 subjects over 19 years old. Subjects were classified as having normosmia (n=542), hyposmia (n=472), and anosmia (n=113) by self-reported olfactory function. The YOF test and the Korean version of the Sniffin' stick test (KVSS-II) were performed on the same day in random order. Diagnostic cutoffs for anosmia and hyposmia were calculated using the Youden index (J).

Results: The mean values for each T/D/I subtest and the total TDI score were as follows: normosmia (T, 4.6±2.3; D, 8.6±2.1; I, 11.1±1.7; TDI score, 24.2±4.5); hyposmia (T, 3.3±2.2; D, 7.1±2.5; I, 9.2±3.1; TDI score, 19.5±6.4); and anosmia (T, 1.7±1.2; D, 5.1±2.5; I, 5.0±3.2; TDI score, 11.8±5.6). The correlation coefficients between the YOF test and KVSS-II were 0.57, 0.65, 0.80, and 0.86 for T, D, I, and the TDI score, respectively (P<0.001). The diagnostic cutoffs were a TDI score ≤14.5 (J=0.67) for anosmia and 14.5(TDI score ≤21.0 (J=0.38) for hyposmia. The diagnostic efficacy of the YOF test (area under the curve [AUC], 0.88) was equivalent to that of the KVSS-II (AUC, 0.88; P=0.843; DeLong method).

Conclusion: The YOF test is a new olfactory test using safe and Korean culture-friendly odorants. It showed equivalent validity with the conventional olfactory function test. Furthermore, the YOF test provides information on the major functional groups of odorants, potentially enabling a more comprehensive interpretation for patients with olfactory disorders.

Citing Articles

The YSK Olfactory Function Test: Development of a New Korean Olfactory Test.

Cho H, Ha J, Kim C J Rhinol. 2024; 29(2):61-68.

PMID: 39665062 PMC: 11540245. DOI: 10.18787/jr.2021.00379.

Analysis of olfactory function in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin positivity.

Kim M, Chae H, Kwon D, Jeon E, Lee Y, Lee E Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):26138.

PMID: 39478131 PMC: 11525943. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-77459-7.

Comparative analyses of post-infectious olfactory dysfunction between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases.

Eo T, Jeong Y, Cho H, Rha M, Kim C Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):23511.

PMID: 39379543 PMC: 11461854. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-74629-5.

S100A9 induces tissue remodeling of human nasal epithelium in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyp.

Ahn S, Oh J, Kim D, Lee E, Rha M, Cho H Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2024; 15(2):135-148.

PMID: 39367796 PMC: 11785152. DOI: 10.1002/alr.23460.

Impact of Aeroallergen Sensitization on Chronic Rhinosinusitis.

Im Y, Kim D, Alkhars Z, Park Y, Kim S, Kim D Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2024; 16(3):279-290.

PMID: 38910285 PMC: 11199156. DOI: 10.4168/aair.2024.16.3.279.

References

Kim J, Jeong M, Shin D, Seol J, Hong S, Cho J . Olfactory identification test using familiar distracters for koreans. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 7(1):19-23. PMC: 3932344. DOI: 10.3342/ceo.2014.7.1.19. View

Zernecke R, Frank T, Haegler K, Albrecht J, Bruckmann H, Wiesmann M . Correlation analyses of detection thresholds of four different odorants. Rhinology. 2011; 49(3):331-6. DOI: 10.4193/Rhino10.263. View

Hummel T, Whitcroft K, Andrews P, Altundag A, Cinghi C, Costanzo R . Position paper on olfactory dysfunction. Rhinology. 2017; 56(1):1-30. DOI: 10.4193/Rhino16.248. View

Hedner M, Larsson M, Arnold N, Zucco G, Hummel T . Cognitive factors in odor detection, odor discrimination, and odor identification tasks. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2010; 32(10):1062-7. DOI: 10.1080/13803391003683070. View

Kern D, Schumm L, Wroblewski K, Pinto J, Hummel T, McClintock M . Olfactory thresholds of the U.S. Population of home-dwelling older adults: development and validation of a short, reliable measure. PLoS One. 2015; 10(3):e0118589. PMC: 4359123. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118589. View

Grabenhorst F, Rolls E, Margot C, da Silva M, Velazco M . How pleasant and unpleasant stimuli combine in different brain regions: odor mixtures. J Neurosci. 2007; 27(49):13532-40. PMC: 6673088. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3337-07.2007. View

Hsieh J, Keller A, Wong M, Jiang R, Vosshall L . SMELL-S and SMELL-R: Olfactory tests not influenced by odor-specific insensitivity or prior olfactory experience. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(43):11275-11284. PMC: 5664538. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1711415114. View

Zernecke R, Vollmer B, Albrecht J, Kleemann A, Haegler K, Linn J . Comparison of two different odorants in an olfactory detection threshold test of the Sniffin’ Sticks. Rhinology. 2010; 48(3):368-73. DOI: 10.4193/Rhino09.212. View

Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf S, Pauli E, Kobal G . 'Sniffin' sticks': olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses. 1997; 22(1):39-52. DOI: 10.1093/chemse/22.1.39. View

10.

Doty R, Smith R, McKeown D, Raj J . Tests of human olfactory function: principal components analysis suggests that most measure a common source of variance. Percept Psychophys. 1994; 56(6):701-7. DOI: 10.3758/bf03208363. View

11.

Berendse H, Ponsen M . Detection of preclinical Parkinson's disease along the olfactory trac(t). J Neural Transm Suppl. 2006; (70):321-5. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-211-45295-0_48. View

12.

Jacquot L, Hidalgo J, Brand G . Just noticeable difference in olfaction is related to trigeminal component of odorants. Rhinology. 2010; 48(3):281-4. DOI: 10.4193/Rhino09.200. View

13.

DeLong E, Delong D, Clarke-Pearson D . Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44(3):837-45. View

14.

Bale A, Lee J . An overview of butanol-induced developmental neurotoxicity and the potential mechanisms related to these observed effects. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2015; 53:33-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.ntt.2015.11.006. View

15.

Scognamiglio J, Jones L, Letizia C, Api A . Fragrance material review on phenylethyl alcohol. Food Chem Toxicol. 2011; 50 Suppl 2:S224-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.10.028. View

16.

Heden Blomqvist E, Bramerson A, Stjarne P, Nordin S . Consequences of olfactory loss and adopted coping strategies. Rhinology. 2005; 42(4):189-94. View

17.

David R, Tyler T, Ouellette R, Faber W, Banton M . Evaluation of subchronic toxicity of n-butyl acetate vapor. Food Chem Toxicol. 2001; 39(8):877-86. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-6915(01)00021-7. View

18.

Lotsch J, Reichmann H, Hummel T . Different odor tests contribute differently to the evaluation of olfactory loss. Chem Senses. 2007; 33(1):17-21. DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjm058. View

19.

Segal D, Bale A, Phillips L, Sasso A, Schlosser P, Starkey C . Issues in assessing the health risks of n-butanol. J Appl Toxicol. 2019; 40(1):72-86. PMC: 9528569. DOI: 10.1002/jat.3820. View

20.

Albrecht J, Schreder T, Kleemann A, Schopf V, Kopietz R, Anzinger A . Olfactory detection thresholds and pleasantness of a food-related and a non-food odour in hunger and satiety. Rhinology. 2009; 47(2):160-5. View