Massively collaborative crowdsourced research on COVID19 and the chemical senses: Insights and outcomes

In March 2020, the Global Consortium of Chemosensory Research (GCCR) was founded by chemosensory researchers to address emerging reports of unusual smell and taste dysfunction arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Over the next year, the GCCR used a highly collaborative model, along with contemporary Open Science practices, to produce multiple high impact publications on chemosensation and COVID19. This invited manuscript describes the founding of the GCCR, the tools and approaches it used, and a summary of findings to date. These findings are contextualized within a summary of some of the broader insights about chemosensation (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) and COVID19 gained over the last 18 months, including potential mechanisms of loss. Also, it includes a detailed discussion of some current Open Science approaches and practices used by the GCCR to increase transparency, rigor, and reproducibility.

Proof-of-concept: SCENTinel 1.1 rapidly discriminates COVID-19-related olfactory disorders.

It is estimated that 20%-67% of those with COVID-19 develop olfactory disorders, depending on the SARS-CoV-2 variant. However, there is an absence of quick, population-wide olfactory tests to screen for olfactory disorders. The purpose of this study was to provide a proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid, inexpensive, population-wide olfactory test, can discriminate between anosmia (total smell loss), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), parosmia (distorted odor perception), and phantosmia (odor sensation without a source). Participants were mailed a SCENTinel 1.1 test, which measures odor detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness, using one of 4 possible odors. Those who completed the test (N = 287) were divided into groups based on their self-reported olfactory function: quantitative olfactory disorder only (anosmia or hyposmia, N = 135), qualitative olfactory disorder only (parosmia and/or phantosmia; N = 86), and normosmia (normal sense of smell; N = 66). SCENTinel 1.1 accurately discriminates quantitative olfactory disorders, qualitative olfactory disorders, and normosmia groups. When olfactory disorders were assessed individually, SCENTinel 1.1 discriminates between hyposmia, parosmia, and anosmia. Participants with parosmia rated common odors less pleasant than those without parosmia. We provide proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid smell test, can discriminate quantitative and qualitative olfactory disorders, and is the only direct test to rapidly discriminate parosmia.

The Adaptive Olfactory Measure of Threshold (ArOMa-T): A rapid test of olfactory function.

Many widely used psychophysical olfactory tests have limitations that can create barriers to adoption. For example, tests that measure the ability to identify odors may confound sensory performance with memory recall, verbal ability, and prior experience with the odor. Conversely, classic threshold-based tests avoid these issues, but are labor intensive. Additionally, many commercially available tests are slow and may require a trained administrator, making them impractical for use in situations where time is at a premium or self-administration is required. We tested the performance of the Adaptive Olfactory Measure of Threshold (ArOMa-T) - a novel odor detection threshold test that employs an adaptive Bayesian algorithm paired with a disposable odorant delivery card - in a non-clinical sample of individuals (n=534) at the 2021 Twins Day Festival in Twinsburg, OH. Participants successfully completed the test in under 3 min with a false alarm rate of 7.5% and a test-retest reliability of 0.61. Odor detection thresholds differed by sex (~3.2-fold lower for females) and age (~8.7-fold lower for the youngest versus the oldest age group), consistent with prior studies. In an exploratory analysis, we failed to observe evidence of detection threshold differences between participants who reported a history of COVID-19 and matched controls who did not. We also found evidence for broad-sense heritability of odor detection thresholds. Together, this study suggests the ArOMa-T can determine odor detection thresholds. Additional validation studies are needed to confirm the value of ArOMa-T in clinical or field settings where rapid and portable assessment of olfactory function is needed.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 35.34%-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, P = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

Massively collaborative crowdsourced research on COVID19 and the chemical senses: Insights and outcomes.

In March 2020, the Global Consortium of Chemosensory Research (GCCR) was founded by chemosensory researchers to address emerging reports of unusual smell and taste dysfunction arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Over the next year, the GCCR used a highly collaborative model, along with contemporary Open Science practices, to produce multiple high impact publications on chemosensation and COVID19. This invited manuscript describes the founding of the GCCR, the tools and approaches it used, and a summary of findings to date. These findings are contextualized within a summary of some of the broader insights about chemosensation (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) and COVID19 gained over the last 18 months, including potential mechanisms of loss. Also, it includes a detailed discussion of some current Open Science approaches and practices used by the GCCR to increase transparency, rigor, and reproducibility.

SCENTinel 1.0: Development of a Rapid Test to Screen for Smell Loss.

Commercially available smell tests are primarily used in research or in-depth clinical evaluations and are too costly and time-consuming for population surveillance in health emergencies like COVID-19. To address this need, we developed the SCENTinel 1.0 test, which rapidly evaluates 3 olfactory functions: detection, intensity, and identification. We tested whether self-administering the SCENTinel 1.0 test discriminates between individuals with self-reported smell loss and those with average smell ability (normosmic individuals) and provides performance comparable to the validated and standardized NIH Toolbox Odor Identification Test in normosmic individuals. Using Bayesian linear models and prognostic classification algorithms, we compared the SCENTinel 1.0 performance of a group of self-reported anosmic individuals (N = 111, 47 ± 13 years old, F = 71%) and normosmic individuals (N = 154, 47 ± 14 years old, F = 74%) as well as individuals reporting other smell disorders (such as hyposmia or parosmia; N = 42, 55 ± 10 years old, F = 67%). Ninety-four percent of normosmic individuals met our SCENTinel 1.0 accuracy criteria compared with only 10% of anosmic individuals and 64% of individuals with other smell disorders. Overall performance on SCENTinel 1.0 predicted belonging to the normosmic group better than identification or detection alone (vs. anosmic: AUC = 0.95, specificity = 0.94). Odor intensity provided the best single-feature predictor to classify normosmic individuals. Among normosmic individuals, 92% met the accuracy criteria at both SCENTinel 1.0 and the NIH Toolbox Odor Identification Test. SCENTinel 1.0 is a practical test able to discriminate individuals with smell loss and will likely be useful in many clinical situations, including COVID-19 symptom screening.

NIH Workshop Report: sensory nutrition and disease.

In November 2019, the NIH held the "Sensory Nutrition and Disease" workshop to challenge multidisciplinary researchers working at the interface of sensory science, food science, psychology, neuroscience, nutrition, and health sciences to explore how chemosensation influences dietary choice and health. This report summarizes deliberations of the workshop, as well as follow-up discussion in the wake of the current pandemic. Three topics were addressed: A) the need to optimize human chemosensory testing and assessment, B) the plasticity of chemosensory systems, and C) the interplay of chemosensory signals, cognitive signals, dietary intake, and metabolism. Several ways to advance sensory nutrition research emerged from the workshop: 1) refining methods to measure chemosensation in large cohort studies and validating measures that reflect perception of complex chemosensations relevant to dietary choice; 2) characterizing interindividual differences in chemosensory function and how they affect ingestive behaviors, health, and disease risk; 3) defining circuit-level organization and function that link and interact with gustatory, olfactory, homeostatic, visceral, and cognitive systems; and 4) discovering new ligands for chemosensory receptors (e.g., those produced by the microbiome) and cataloging cell types expressing these receptors. Several of these priorities were made more urgent by the current pandemic because infection with sudden acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the ensuing coronavirus disease of 2019 has direct short- and perhaps long-term effects on flavor perception. There is increasing evidence of functional interactions between the chemosensory and nutritional sciences. Better characterization of this interface is expected to yield insights to promote health, mitigate disease risk, and guide nutrition policy.

Objective Sensory Testing Methods Reveal a Higher Prevalence of Olfactory Loss in COVID-19-Positive Patients Compared to Subjective Methods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has currently infected over 6.5 million people worldwide. In response to the pandemic, numerous studies have tried to identify the causes and symptoms of the disease. Emerging evidence supports recently acquired anosmia (complete loss of smell) and hyposmia (partial loss of smell) as symptoms of COVID-19, but studies of olfactory dysfunction show a wide range of prevalence from 5% to 98%. We undertook a search of Pubmed/Medline and Google Scholar with the keywords "COVID-19," "smell," and/or "olfaction." We included any study that quantified smell loss (anosmia and hyposmia) as a symptom of COVID-19. Studies were grouped and compared based on the type of method used to measure smell loss-subjective measures, such as self-reported smell loss, versus objective measures using rated stimuli-to determine if prevalence differed by method type. For each study, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from point estimates of olfactory disturbances. We identified 34 articles quantifying anosmia as a symptom of COVID-19 (6 objective and 28 subjective), collected from cases identified from January 16 to April 30, 2020. The pooled prevalence estimate of smell loss was 77% when assessed through objective measurements (95% CI of 61.4-89.2%) and 44% with subjective measurements (95% CI of 32.2-57.0%). Objective measures are a more sensitive method to identify smell loss as a result of infection with SARS-CoV-2; the use of subjective measures, while expedient during the early stages of the pandemic, underestimates the true prevalence of smell loss.