Olfactory loss is an early and reliable marker for COVID-19
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Detection of early and reliable symptoms is important in relation to limiting the spread of an infectious disease. For COVID-19, the most prevalent symptom is either losing or experiencing reduced olfactory functions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that olfactory dysfunction is also one of the earlier symptoms of COVID-19 but objective measures supporting this notion are currently missing. To determine whether olfactory dysfunction is an early sign of COVID-19, we assessed available longitudinal data from a web-based interface enabling individuals to test their sense of smell by rating the intensity of selected household odors. Individuals continuously used the interface to assess their olfactory functions and at each login, in addition to odor ratings, recorded their symptoms and result from potential COVID-19 test. A total of 205 COVID-19 positive individuals and 156 pseudo-randomly matched control individuals lacking positive test provided longitudinal data which enabled us to assess olfactory functions in relation to their test results date. We found that odor intensity ratings started to decline in the COVID-19 group as early as 6 days prior to test result date. Symptoms such as sore throat, aches, and runny nose appear around the same point in time; however, with a lower predictability of a COVID-19 diagnose. Our results suggest that olfactory dysfunction is an early symptom but does not appear before other related COVID-19 symptoms. Olfactory dysfunction is, however, more predictive of an COVID-19 diagnose than other early symptoms.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.23.22271409: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank…
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.23.22271409: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
-