ABSTRACT
The sense of smell plays an essential role in the sensory evaluation of coffee. However, a precise sensory evaluation also requires good memory and the ability to stay focused and concentrated. This study aimed to investigate the effect of an online sensory and cognitive training program on the odor recognition of 36 coffee aromas. A total of 44 coffee professionals participated in a randomized crossover trial. It consisted of an online training program with different sensory and cognitive tasks over two periods of 6 weeks. The participants were divided into three study groups for data analysis purposes: a Control-first group (n = 16), a matching Intervention-first group (n = 16), and a second Intervention-first-residual group (n = 12) to check for repeatability of the test results. On average, the participants improved their odor recognition score by 15% after 6 weeks of training (p <.01) and maintained a high-performance level after the control period. A positive correlation between completed training and improvement was observed (p <.001). The participants significantly improved their ability to detect the 36 Le Nez du Café aromas commonly used in the Specialty Coffee Association (SCA) and the Coffee Quality Institute (CQI) exam systems. Practical Applications: The new online training program is a promising tool for improving the odor recognition of coffee professionals. The sensory training can easily be accomplished as it is executable off-site, is self-instructive, and does not require any supervision. A further generalization of this new odor-training program for noncoffee professionals may potentially train people with prolonged loss in olfactory function, such as observed in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Sensory Studies published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have been approved through Emergency Use Authorization and require further evaluation of sensitivity and specificity in clinical laboratory settings prior to implementation. METHODS: We included 1733 samples from 375 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals of the North Zealand Covid-19 Cohort in an 8-month period. We investigated diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against consensus and PCR and interassay agreement over time for 5 SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays [Roche-nucleocapsid (NC)-total, Roche-receptor binding domain (RBD)-total, Siemens-RBD-IgG, Siemens-RBD-total, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TFS)-RBD-IgG] commercially available on automated platforms and 2 ELISA assays (TFS-RBD-total, Wantai-RBD-total). RESULTS: Early interassay discrepancy in up to 49% of samples decreased steadily during the first 18 days. By day 18, all assays had reached a plateau between 82.3% and 90.5% seropositivity compared to PCR. Assays ranked by closest agreement with the consensus model beyond day 18 (sensitivity/specificity against consensus) were as follows: Roche-RBD-total, 99.8%/100.0%; Wantai-RBD-total, 99.8%/99.7%; Roche-NC-total, 97.8%/100.0%; Siemens-RBD-total, 98.0%/98.7%; TFS-RBD-total, 96.9%/99.7%; TFS-RBD-IgG, 91.5%/100.0%; and Siemens-RBD-IgG, 94.6%/89.9%. We found that 7.8% of PCR-positive patients remained seronegative in all assays throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: All included assays had sensitivities against consensus >90% past day 18. For the current recommended use of antibody assays to detect former, undocumented Covid-19, our data suggest the use of total antibody assays rather than IgG-specific assays due to higher long-term sensitivity. Finally, a nonresponding subpopulation of 7.8% in our cohort with persistent seronegative results raises concern of a possible substantial number of people with continued low protection following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.