ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2026
Olfaction and Coronary Heart Disease.
Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 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.
- Olfactory dysfunction and increased systemic immune inflammation index in patients with atrial fibrillation.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Poor olfaction may be associated with incident coronary heart disease (CHD) in older adults, but empirical evidence is limited. Objective: To investigate the association of olfaction with risk of CHD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective analysis of secondary data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, an ongoing prospective cohort, included 5142 US older adults who did not have CHD and had olfaction as assessed at visit 5. At-risk participants were followed up from visit 5 (June 2011 to September 2013) to the date of the first outcome of interest, death, last contact, or December 31, 2020, whichever came first. Data analysis was conducted from March 2024 to January 2025. Exposure: Olfaction was measured using a 12-item odor identification test and defined as good (score, 11-12), moderate (score, 9-10), and poor (score, 0-8). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was incident adjudicated CHD events. The discrete-time subdistribution hazard model was used to estimate the absolute risk of CHD across olfactory statuses and adjusted marginal risk ratio and 95% CI while accounting for covariates and competing risk of death. Results: Of 5142 older adults (mean [SD] age, 75.4 [5.1] years), 3234 (62.9%) were female, 1230 (23.9%) were Black, and 3912 (76.1%) were White. After 9.6 years of follow-up (median [quartile 1-quartile 3]: 8.4 [7.4-8.9]), 280 incident CHD events (5.4%) were identified. Poor olfaction was associated with a higher risk of CHD risk, although the association was attenuated with extended follow-up. Comparing poor with good olfaction, the adjusted marginal risk ratio of CHD was 2.06 (95% CI, 1.04-4.53) at year 2, 2.02 (95% CI, 1.27-3.29) at year 4, 1.59 (95% CI, 1.13-2.35) at year 6, 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.70) at year 8, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.78-1.44) at year 9. The time-varying associations were confirmed using the period-specific, cause-specific Cox regression. The findings were robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The association between moderate olfaction and CHD risk was weaker but showed a similar time-varying pattern as that observed for poor olfaction. Conclusion and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that, for older adults, poor olfaction as assessed by a single smell identification test is associated with a higher CHD risk.
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.