Abstract
Background Commercially available smell tests are primarily used in research or in-depth clinical evaluations, but are too costly and lengthy for population surveillance in health emergencies like COVID-19. We developed the SCENTinel 1.0 test which rapidly evaluates three olfactory functions (detection, intensity, and identification). We tested whether self-administering the SCENTinel 1.0 test discriminates between individuals with smell loss or average smell ability (normosmics), and provides comparable performance as the validated and standardized NIH Toolbox® Odor Identification Test in normosmics.
Methods Using Bayesian linear models and prognostic classification algorithms, we compared the SCENTinel 1.0 performance of a group of self-reported anosmics (N=111, 47±13yo, F=71%,) and normosmics (N=154, 47±14yo, F=74%), as well as individuals reporting other smell disorders (e.g., hyposmia, parosmia; N=42, 55±10yo, F=67%).
Results Ninety-four percent of normosmics met our SCENTinel 1.0 accuracy criteria, while only 10% of anosmics and 64% of individuals with other smell disorders did. Overall performance on SCENTinel 1.0 predicted belonging to the normosmic group better than identification or detection alone (vs. anosmic: AUC=0.95, Sensitivity=0.72, Specificity=0.94). Odor intensity provided the best single-feature predictor to classify normosmics. Among normosmics, 92% met the accuracy criteria at both SCENTinel 1.0 and the NIH Toolbox® Odor Identification Test.
Conclusions SCENTinel 1.0 is a practical test able to discriminate individuals with smell loss and is likely to be useful in many clinical situations, including COVID-19 symptom screening.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We acknowledge support from the Monell Institutional Funds. Mackenzie Hannum and Robert Pellegrino are supported by NIH T32 funding (DC000014). This work was also supported by contributions for anosmia research from John Hickey, Philip Johnson, John Labows, Stephen Manheimer, Robert Margolskee, and hundreds of other individual donors. We thank Kerry and the Vernekoff Foundation for their support of this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved using a waiver of documentation of consent by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Pennsylvania (#821887).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data and analysis script will be publicly available on GitHub upon publication.
