ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Optimizing Odorants for Olfactory Training Based on Olfactory Receptor-Ligand Pair Analysis.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing Odorants for Olfactory Training Based on Olfactory Receptor-Ligand Pair Analysis.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo optimize olfactory training (OT) by identifying a scientifically grounded combination of odorants that maximally stimulate human olfactory receptors (ORs) through the utilization of a comprehensive receptor-ligand interaction dataset.
methodsWe analyzed 75,050 OR-odor pair experiments from the M2OR database, focusing on 385 unique human ORs and 510 unique odorants. Utilizing human olfactory epithelium transcriptomic data, we identified highly abundant ORs and evaluated their interactions with various odorants to determine the optimal odorant combination for maximizing OR stimulation. The effectiveness of the classical OT odorants (rose, lemon, eucalyptus, and clove) in maximal OR stimulation was also evaluated and compared to the optimal odor combination.
resultsA novel four-odorant combination (galaxolide, eugenol acetate, [-]-menthol, and geranyl acetate) would stimulate 323 ORs (83.9% of 385 ORs), covering 69.9% of estimated OR expression. In comparison, the classical four OT odor mixture would stimulate 151 ORs (39.2% of 385 ORs), covering 32.9% of estimated OR expression. Both odorant combinations stimulated a large proportion of highly abundant ORs, presumed to be functionally important. These findings suggest that while the classical odors have a substantial effect, the novel odorant combination has the potential to offer significantly broader receptor activation and improved outcomes in OT.
conclusionThis receptor-based approach provides a scientifically grounded method for optimizing OT. Further clinical validation is necessary to confirm the therapeutic efficacy of this approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.